fev eae ee pe 
> ee : 


. on 
eee tee 


eters 


. Se i 


Pippa 
seis 
sEI001 St 


mcoricneet 


5959 


ences terret 
escort 


ooo) 


oe 


seal 


yet 


ne 


s 
idee 
es 














SANDRO BOTTICELLI 





SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


WILHELM BODE 


TRANSLATED BY 


F. RENFIELD, M.A., LL.M. 


AND 


F, L. RUDSTON BROWN 


WITH 98 ILLUSTRATIONS 


ee 


wae "au nh © 
gees 
Pf 2 
" rae fot be 
hy = the ee 
-L { 
= 
= a 
[arg v 
= 1 
E Cite 
= ae 
= “ale 
3 PR 
E bored 0) : 


— 





METHUEN & CO. LTD. 
36 ESSEX STREET W.C. 
LONDON 


THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM 
LIBRARY 





PREFACE 


HE standard work on Sandro Botticelli by Herbert 
Horne, that appeared in 1908, is based on the most 
painstaking and exhaustive research among the records 

of the man and his works, but the author scarcely does full 
justice to the artist and poet in Botticelli. <A dry critique is not 
best calculated to awaken the appreciation due to an artist of 
such rich imagination and even mystical feeling as Botticelli. 
We must read between the lines, and draw conclusions from the 
meaning of his pictures as to his circumstances and his personal 
relations with his patron, Lorenzo, and the circle of humanists 
at the Court of the Medici. For, so intimate was his depen- 
dence on humanism that its collapse crippled his creative powers 
and brought his art to an untimely end. 

How powerful an influence the great Medici exercised over 
the artists of Botticelli’s day, how zealously he sought to make 
his humanistic ideas comprehensible to them, and to encourage 
their use in works of art, has become extraordinarily clear to 
me through a study I have just completed of another artist of 
the Medici circle, Bertoldo, a great number of whose works, 
possibly the major portion, are closely connected with the 
Medici, in fact, many of them were produced in intimate co- 
operation with the Magnifico. We may assume a similar con- 
nection with regard to several of Botticelli’s works, particularly 
his masterpieces, and it is in this conviction that the present 
book on Botticzlli is written. I trust that, in essentials at 
least, it may meet with the approval of its readers. 

WILHELM BODE 

May 1925 

V 





CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 


I. 


II. 


III. 


VI. 


VIII. 


IX. 


List OF PLATES 
INTRODUCTION 


BOTTICELLYS ANCESTRY, TEACHERS AND EARLY 
WORKS : 


BOTTICELLYS EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


MYTHOLOGICAL AND ALLEGORICAL SCENES COMMIS- 
SIONED BY THE MEDICI 


BOTTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER IN FLORENCE AND 
ROME 


BOTTICELLI IN THE ’EIGHTIES AS A PAINTER OF 
ALTAR-PIECES. 


BOTTICELLI AND HIS ART IN THE LAST YEARS OF 
LORENZO DE’ MEDICI AND UNDER THE INFLUENCE 
OF SAVONAROLA 


BOTTICELLI’S DRAWINGS FOR THE DIVINA COMMEDIA 
BOTTICELLI: THE ARTIST AND THE MAN. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


INDEX 


Vil 


PAGE 


30 


48 


73 


98 


117 


142 


150 


169 


173 





* XXVI. 


XXVII. 
XXVIII. 


LIST OF PLATES 


. The Magnificat. Florence, Uffizi 


. Singing Angels. Florence, Uffizi, Collection of Drawings 
. Portrait of Sandro Botticelli from Filippino’s likeness in the 


Fresco of Masaccio’s Crucifixion of Saint Peter. Florence, 
Carmine 


. Adoration of the Kings. London, National Gallery 

. Adoration of the Kings. London, National Gallery 

. Fortitude. Florence, Uffizi 

. Fra Filippo: Madonna. Florence, Uffizi 

. Madonna with Angels. Florence, Uffizi 

. Madonna with Five Angels. Paris, Louvre 

. Madonna in a Cloud of Cherubim. Florence, Uffizi 

. Rosebush Madonna. Florence, Uffizi 

. Madonna with the Little St. John. Paris, Louvre 

. Madonna with an Angel who offers Grapes and Ears of Corn to 


the Holy Child. Boston, Gardner Collection 


. Judith and her Maid with the Head of Holofernes. Florence, 


Uffizi 


. Discovery of the Corpse of Holofernes. Florence, Uffizi 
. Madonna. Florence, Corsini Gallery 
. St. Sebastian. Berlin, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum 


Madonna with Two Angels. Naples, Museo Nazionale 


. Madonna Enthroned, with Six Saints. Florence, Uffizi 
. Adoration of the Kings. Petrograd, Hermitage Gallery 
. Adoration of the Kings. Florence, Uffizi 

. Adoration of the Kings. Florence, Uffizi 

- Details from the Adoration. Florence, Uffizi 


Details from the Adoration. Florence, Uffizi 


. Portrait of Giuliano de’ Medici. Berlin, Kaiser-Friedrich 


Museum 


Portrait of Giuliano de’ Medici. New York, Otto H. Kahn 
Collection 


Design for an Athene. Florence, Uffizi 
Spring. Florence, Uffizi 
1X 


XXXI. 
XXXII. 


XXXII. 
XXXIV. 
XXXV. 
XXXVI. 
XXXVII. 


SXXVITI. 
XXXIX. 


. Portrait of Simonetta. 
. Piero di Cosimo: 


. Fresco depicting the Youth of Moses. 
. Portrait of a Man. 
. Portrait of a Youth Wearing a Hood. Florence, Palazzo Pitti 
. Fresco depicting Aaron Punishing the Rebellious, 


. (?) Portrait of Caterina Sforza in Profile. 
. Fresco depicting the Introduction of Lorenzo Tornabuoni into 


. Madonna with Angels Holding Candlesticks, 


. Madonna Enthroned, with Six Saints. 
. Madonna with the two St. 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Berlin, Kappel Collection 

Fancy Portrait of Simonetta. Chaniilly, 
Museum 

Portrait of Simonetta. 

Fancy Portrait of Simonetta. 
Institute 

Fancy Portrait of Simonetta. Richmond, Cook Collection 

Mars and Venus. London, National Gallery 

Venus. Berlin, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum 

The Birth of Venus. Florence, Uffizi 

Bronze Plaque by a Florentine Master, about 1475. Berlin, 
Kaiser-Friedrich Museum 

Fresco of St. Augustine. Florence, Ognissanii 

Fresco depicting the Sacrificial Cleansing of the Leper. 
Siatine Chapel 


Berlin, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum 
Frankfort-on-the-Main, Staedel 


Rome, 


Rome, Sixtine Chapel 
Paris, Rud. Kann Collection 


Rome, 
Siatine Chapel 


. Portrait of a Youth Wearing a Red Cap. London, National 


Gallery 


. Portrait of a Youth against an Open Window. American 


Private Collection 


. A Young Lady in a Room. London, Victoria and Albert 


Museum 
Altenburg, Museum 


the Circle of the Liberal Sciences. Paris, Louvre 


. Fresco depicting the Greeting of Giovanna degli Albizzi by the 


Cardinal Virtues. Paris, Louvre 


. Portrait Medallion of Giovanna degli Albizzi, wife of Lorenzo 


Tornabuoni, by Niccolo Sforzore 


. Portrait Medallion of Lorenzo Tornabuoni, by Niccolo Sforzore 
. Pallas Athene Taming the Centaur. Florence, Palazzo Pitti 

. Raczynski Madonna. 
. Madonna with the Pomegranate. 
. Madonna with Angels and the Little St. John. 


Berlin, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum 
Florence, Uffizi 

Rome, Borghese 
Gallery - 
Berlin, Kaiser- 
Friedrich Museum 

Florence, Uffizi 

Johns. Berlin, Katser-Friedrich 
Museum 


PLATE 


LIX. 
LX. 
‘LXL 
LXI. 


LXITlI. 


LXIV. 
LXV. 
LXVI. 
LXVII. 


LXVIII. 
LXIX. 
LXX. 


LXXI. 


LXXII. 
LXXITI. 
LXXIV. 
LXXV. 
LXXVI. 
LXXVII. 
LXXVIII. 
LXXIX. 
LXXX. 


LXXXI, 


LXXXII. 


LXXXITTI. 


LXXXIV. 


LXXXV. 
LXXXVI. 


bo cO her AY ES 


The Coronation of the Virgin, with Four Saints. 
The Annunciation. Florence, Uffizi 
The Calumny of Apelles. Florence, Uffizi 


The Story of Nastagio degli Onesti. London, Vernon Watney 
Collection 


Portrait of a Man against a Blue Background. Berlin, Eduard 
Simon Collection 


(?) Portrait of Clarice Orsini. Florence, Palazzo Pitti - 
Adoration of the Child under a Canopy. Milan, Ambrosiana 


Florence, Uffizi 


Madonna. Milan, Poldi-Pezzoli Collection 
The Last Communion of St. Jerome. New York, Metropolitan 
Museum 


St. Augustine in his Study. Florence, Uffizi 
The Annunciation. Berlin, Huldschinsky Collection 


Scenes from the Life of St. Zenobius. London, National Gallery, 
Mond Collection 


Scenes from the Life of St. Zenobius. 
Mond Collection 


The Story of Virginia. Bergamo, Carrara Gallery 

Portrait of Lorenzo Lorenzano. Philadelphia, Museum 

The Lamentation for Christ. Munich, Alie Pinakothek 

The Lamentation for Christ. Milan, Poldi-Pezzoli Collection 

Adoration of the Child. London, National Gallery 

The Divine Punishment of Florence. Private Ownership 

Copperplate Engraving of the Assumption. Florence, Uffizi 

Portrait of Dante. London, Langton Douglas. 

Drawings for Dante’s Divina Commedia: The Fettered Giants 
(Inferno, Canto XXXI). Berlin, Collection of Copperplate 
Engravings 

Drawings for Dante’s Divina Commedia: In the Circle of the 
Envious (Purgatorio, Canto XV). Berlin, Kupferstich- 
Kabinett 

Drawings for Dante’s Divina Commedia: At the Boundary 
between Purgatory and the Earthly Paradise (Purgatorio, 
Canto XXIX). Berlin, Kupferstich-Kabinett 

Drawing for Dante’s Divina Commedia: Dante, Guided by 
Beatrice, Floats up to Paradise (Paradiso, Canto I). Berlin, 
Kupferstich-K abinett 

Drawing for Dante’s Divina Commedia: Dante and Beatrice in 
the Fifth Heaven, the Sphere of Mars (Paradiso, Canto 
XVI). Berlin, Kupferstich-K abineti 


Portrait of a Youth. Paris, Louvre 


Scene from the Life of St. Mary Magdalene. 
Museum 


London, National Gallery, 


Philadelphia, 


xi 


PLATE 


LXXXVII. 


LXXXVIII. 


LXXXIX. 


XC. 


XCI. 


XCII. 
XCITI. 


XCIV. 


XCV. 
XCVI. 
XCVII. 
XCVIII. 


Xi 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Scene from the Life of St. Mary Magdalene. 
Museum 

Scene from the Life of St. Mary Magdalene. Philadelphia, 
Museum 

Scene from the Life of St. Mary Magdalene. 
Museum 

Lead Plaque of Venus on the Dolphin, after Botticelli. 
Kaiser-Friedrich Museum 

Portrait of a Youth against a Black Background. Berlin, 
Kaiser-Friedrich Museum 


Philadelphia, 


Philadelphia, 


Berlin, 


The Annunciation. Glasgow Gallery 

Dancing Angels from the Coronation of the Virgin. Florence, 
Uffize 

Dancing Angels from the Coronation of the Virgin. Florence, 


Uffizi 
Head of Flora in ‘ Spring.’ 
Head of a Grace in ‘Spring.’ Florence, Uffiza 
Head of a Grace in ‘Spring.’ Florence, Uffizi 
Study for an Adoration of the Child. Florence, Uffizi 


Florence, Uffizi 


Mn, 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


CHAPTER I 


INTRODUCTION 


ANDRO BOTTICELLIYS standing in the eyes of the 
Italian artists of his own day was one of esteem but 
by no means of pre-eminence. Vasari, who was born 

in Sandro’s lifetime, gives us a fairly detailed though super- 
ficial account of Botticelli’s life and work without suggesting 
that he ranks above his contemporaries. The same is true of 
such other contemporary literary references as have come down 
to us, particularly those in Albertini’s Memoriale, in the works 
of Francesco Billi, and in Gaddi’s Anonimo. From that time 
forward our artist, in common with fifteenth-century art in 
general, fell more and more into oblivion. And when, in the | 
first decades of the nineteenth century, early Italian art once 
again began to arouse the interest of artists and amateurs, it 
was not the work of Botticelli, but more particularly Perugino’s 
restrained though too frequently affected representations of 
emotional piety that first struck a sympathetic chord in the 
souls of the young German artists in Rome and delighted them. 
Even so enthusiastic an admirer of Renaissance art as Jacob 
Burckhardt does not, in his Cicerone, so much as place Botti- 
celli on a level with his Florentine contemporaries ; his criticism 
lays stress on certain of the artist’s shortcomings rather than 
on his merits. ‘Sandro Botticelli,’ says Burckhardt, ‘never quite 
1 1 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


achieved the complete expression of his ideas. He loved to 
express life and passion in terms of an almost tempestuous 
emotion and often painted with careless haste. He strove 
after an ideal of beauty, but never advanced beyond one type 
of head which he repeated over and over again in easily recognis- 
able fashion; it is occasionally extremely attractive, but often 
quite crude and lifeless.’ Cavalcaselle, too, in his History of 
Italian Painting, shows little affection for Botticelli in his 
frequently misconceived criticisms of the painter’s work, and 
ranks him considerably below such contemporaries as Domenico 
Ghirlandajo. Morelli’s sarcastic criticisms are even more un- 
just to an artist of such poetical magic as Botticelli. English- 
men, and especially English painters, were the first to devote 
particular attention to him. It was precisely the creations 
of Botticelli that, more than all others, captured the enthusiasm 
of the Pre-Raphaelite School, led by Dante Gabriel Rossetti 
and Burne-Jones. Since that day admiration for the master 
has become universal; a considerable number of popular mono- 
graphs and a few valuable technical works have been published 
about him in various languages, and paintings by him are among 
the most eagerly sought-after treasures of the sale-room. 


We know little of Botticelli’s life, less than about the lives 
of most of the artists of his time. Vasari is our most detailed 
source, and, while it is true that he recounts with his accustomed 
genial latitude a few spicy anecdotes from the artist’s life, what- 
ever else he has to tell us of Sandro’s life and work is shown 
by the documentary evidence that has recently come to light 
to be in many respects inaccurate. Consequently it is the 
paintings themselves that still remain the real basis for our 
appreciation and interpretation, and for the inferences we draw 
from them as to the personal character of the artist. This 
circumstance often adds greatly to the difficulties of conscientious 
criticism ; not merely because it must frequently be a very 

2 


INTRODUCTION 


formidable task to distinguish really genuine creations from the 
many pictures by pupils and imitators who copied Sandro’s 
originals as closely as they could, but also because it is just 
these originals which sometimes show a high degree of imagina- 
tive power. This renders it the less easy to interpret them, 
and where reliable information is lacking, we are only too 
easily tempted to indulge in guesswork and spin a web of un- 
critical conjecture. In the study of so imaginative and original 
an artist as Sandro, critical caution is indispensable; but we 
must not let it degenerate into pedantic negation, rejecting 
almost every hypothetical inference, however well-founded it 
may appear. This defect makes Herbert Horne’s great work 
(Sandro Botticelli, London, 1908) hard to read, and some of 
its conclusions highly disputable, but in substance it is admir- 
able for the wealth of accurate detail it contains, and in form 
it constitutes a model of the printer’s skill. In approaching 
-an artist who was also emphatically a seer, who was so fresh 
and imaginative in invention, the critical faculty must itself 
at least be touched with imagination. At the risk of now 
and then fathering our own feelings upon the artist (a peril 
from which no age, however critical, can be quite immune !) 
we must endeavour to identify ourselves as completely as possible 
with the artist’s own point of view. Botticelli himself shows 
the way in occasional inscriptions and legends on his pictures, 
and more especially in his illustrations for Dante’s Divine 
Comedy. It is only by cautiously following up these clues that 
we can attain a true understanding and full enjoyment of his 
work. | 

Herbert Horne’s book will, for many years to come, remain 
the standard work on Botticelli as regards the ascertained 
facts of his life and of his creative activity, but when we seek 
to grasp the inner significance of his works, their relation to 
each other and to contemporary Florentine art, and to arrive 
at a just appreciation of them, Horne leaves us only too often 

3 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


at a loss. Aby Warburg’s illuminating and extraordinarily 
thorough study (Sandro Boiticelli’s Birth of Venus and Spring, 
1892) has laid an admirable foundation for a true understanding 
of precisely those among Botticelli’s masterpieces which by 
reason of their subject-matter and associations are the most 
difficult to interpret. This doctorial thesis of Warburg’s was 
closely followed by Hermann Ulmann’s Sandro Botticelli (1898) ; 
this is the most stimulating and, in spite of a few misconcep- 
tions since rectified by further research, the most conscientious 
of monographs from a critical point of view. Its publica- 
tion was preceded by certain fresh views as to Botticelli’s 
artistic training, his early works and his activities as a portrait 
painter which were put forward by the present writer when 
editing the new issues of Burckhardt’s Cicerone that appeared 
from 1873 onwards. The investigations upon which these 
views were based formed the point of departure for the present 
more ambitious monograph, for so various and so profound is 
the art of this great master that it continually evokes new 
conceptions and affords a prospect of throwing fresh light on 
his work and of penetrating through one aspect or another 
nearer to the heart of him. 


CHAPTER II 


BOTTICELLYS ANCESTRY, TEACHERS AND EARLY WORKS 


fifteenth century. His clearly authenticated activity 

covers the last three decades of that century, for his 
earliest dated work belongs to the year 1470, and the last to 
1500. Further, we may with probability assign a number of 
pictures to the years preceding 1470, and on the other hand 
we may assume a possibly restricted creative activity between 
the picture known to date from 1500 and Sandro’s death in 
1510. Sandro reached artistic maturity at a time when the 
old masters who built up the Renaissance in Italy, such as 
Donatello, Uccello and Castagno, were still in full possession 
of their creative powers, and he was himself a pupil of Fra 
Filippo Lippi, one of the giants of the age. He was also the 
friend of masters such as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, 
who brought Italian art to its highest perfection. Yet he was 
influenced in essentials neither by the earlier nor by the later 
school; his work does not reveal either the simple grandeur 
or the power of Masaccio or Castagno, nor the untrammelled 
mastery which characterises even the early productions of 
the pioneers of the Golden Age of the Renaissance. Botticelli 
is a true child of that peculiar tradition which reaches its culmi- 
nation in Lorenzo il Magnifico and his circle; his works may 
be fairly considered the purest and most typical artistic 
expression of that tradition, as indeed the conceptions under- 
lying those works are nearest akin to the poetic feeling of 

5 


B OTTICELLI belongs to the Florentine school of the late 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Lorenzo himself. The gifted artists of this happy era reaped 
rich harvests without apparent effort from the seed which an 
age of greater virility and genius had sown and cultivated with 
laborious care. Masaccio was the first who succeeded in com- 
bining the plastic moulding of the figures and their correct 
placing in their surroundings with the return to Giotto’s rigorous 
objectivity and grandeur. Fra Angelico imbued his creations 
with the most striking expression of heavenly beatitude, 
the reflex of which lends to his works their light colouring ; 
Andrea del Castagno gave to his figures powerful corporality and 
energetic character ; Paolo Uccello composed in true perspec- 
tive; Piero della Francesca even achieved the proper focussing 
of light. 

The art of the younger generation in Florence appears by 
comparison like a bright reflection of the achievements of the 
older masters. The younger painters (whose best tutor and 
leader was Fra Filippo in virtue of his strong sense of truth, 
his great gift for composition, and his depth of feeling) are 
no longer pioneers like their predecessors and teachers, but 
they co-ordinate what has been achieved, they extend it in 
many directions by the careful working out of detail, and thus 
prepare the way for the new golden age in art, which was to 
be not unlike the Age of Pericles in Greece. The brothers 
Antonio and Piero Pollajuolo and Verrocchio, all three masters 
of plastic work in bronze, paint fully-rounded figures of great 
pictorial effect; by their peculiar varnish paints they achieve 
luminous colouring, and they relieve their subjects against 
a charming landscape, the features of which they borrow from 
their native Arno valley. Benozzo Gozzoli and Domenico 
Ghirlandajo, with an ingenuous joy of life and love of story- 
telling, transfer their sacred characters to a Florentine environ- 
ment and turn Florence and its luxurious surroundings into a 
stage which they people with the figures of patrons and their 


kinsfolk. An emotional appeal, intensified by solemn architec- 
6 


Pare ricEeELLiys ANCESTRY 


ture so used as to focus the composition sharply, is contributed 
by Pietro Perugino as a gift from his Umbrian mountain home. 
Beside these artists, and at the present day even higher than 
they, ranks their contemporary and fellow-worker Botticelli. 
To this position he is fully entitled, even though inferior to 
some of them in plastic effect and pride of colour, and to others 
in the vivid transcription of Florentine life, in the presentation 
of the scenery of Tuscany, or in pious fervour. But the fertile © 
imagination, the taste, the sense of harmony which are inherent 
in his works as in those of no other artist, enriched Florentine 
art with wholly novel charms. 

What Vasari has to tell us about Botticelli’s early life is 
unreliable and partly false. His assertion that the artist died 
in 1515 at the age of 78, from which it would follow that he 
was born in 1437, is contradicted by the statement of his father 
in the denunzia di bent+ of 1457. Mariano di Vanni Filipepi 
there states that he has two daughters and four sons, and that 
his youngest son, Alessandro, is thirteen years of age. As at 
that period the Florentine year began on March 25, Sandro 
must have been born between March 25, 1444, and the same 
date in 1445. The entries in such registers are often not to be 
relied upon where an individual’s age is in question; in those 
days people were often enough not clear in their minds whether 
they themselves or those related to them had been born a couple 
of years earlier or later. But that Sandro’s father did indeed 
state his son’s age correctly in his denunzia of 1457 is evidenced 
by another earlier denunzia, for in 1446 he enters Sandro as 
two years old, an age about which he hardly can have been 
mistaken, and this again fixes Sandro’s birth as in the March 
year 1444/5. 

Vasari further informs us that the boy, though he had plenty 
of ability, and though his father caused him to be instructed 


1A return or inventory of property for purposes of taxation. 


7 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


in all the subjects ‘which it was customary to teach children in 
those days,’ was lazy at school, and did not take either to read- 
ing, writing or arithmetic, with the result that his father finally 
apprenticed him to a goldsmith named Botticelli. This is 
corroborated by the father’s statements in the aforesaid denunzia 
of 1457, for after giving the boy’s age he adds: ‘sta allegare 
ed é malsano.’ Horne translates these words: ‘ He is slow at 
his books and is in bad health,’ assuming legare to be merely 
a clerical error for leggere, since legare (to bind books) makes 
no sense. Horne, however, has overlooked an article in the 
Rivista d@ Arte for 1905 entitled ‘ Delle imprese amorose etc.,’ 
in which Warburg pointed out that legare is also used with the 
meaning ‘ to set precious stones,’ and that Vasari employs the 
word in this sense when speaking of A. Pollajuolo, from which 
Warburg infers that the father’s statement really means that 
his son Sandro was apprenticed to a goldsmith. Warburg’s 
view is that this goldsmith was not Sandro’s brother Giovanni, 
but Antonio Finiguerra, the father of Maso Finiguerra, the 
famous engraver, who is known from a documentary record to 
have had business dealings with Sandro’s father in 1457, the 
very year now in question. Horne seeks to support his theory 
that leggere should be read for legare by citing a copy of the 
denunzia made by Giovanni the son. But unfortunately in 
this document the critical word is only partly legible, all that 
can be deciphered is: ‘sta al l...ere,’ In Horne’s opinion the 
correct reading is undoubtedly al legere, (for leggere). But in 
the circumstances no definite conclusion appears attainable, and 
we can only hope that by some lucky find in the archives the 
question may yet be settled beyond dispute. In his works, 
however, Sandro displays such a thorough knowledge of the 
Bible, and of the ancient classical literature so far as it was 
accessible to him in translations, that we are entitled to assume 
that his early education at school was such as to equip him 
thoroughly for continuing his studies. 
8 


Peper rCeELcCLI’S ANCESTRY 


Though the entries in the register of property are but 
few and scrappy, yet in conjunction with other documentary 
records and the statements of contemporaries and early bio- 
graphers, they enable us to draw valuable inferences as to 
our artist’s life and character. We learn that Sandro was 
born near the Ognissanti church, in a house whose windows 
looked out on the cemetery in which he too was to find 
his last resting place. A few years after the boy was born, his 
father, who was a tanner, acquired a new house, not far from 
the old one, in what is now the Via Porcellana; here the 
artist lived up to the time of Savonarola, and probably all 
his life. In 1494 he purchased, jointly with his brother, a 
villa outside the Porta San Frediano, and from that time 
forward he may have spent the summer in the country and 
the winter in the town. Scanty references in various docu- 
ments give us a highly favourable impression of his family 
life. We learn that his father, who lived to a very great age, 
remained to the end the central figure in the household, that 
besides Sandro himself various other members of the family 
lived at home, or returned home in later life, and that the 
artist, who never married, continued to live there when the 
house passed into the hands of a nephew of his who had a 
family of his own. 

Sandro had three older brothers. Giovanni, the eldest, who 
was born in 1420 and became a prosperous banker and broker, 
seems to have shown great interest in the rest of the family, 
and may probably have supervised Sandro’s education, for in 
1457 their father already states that, being 65 years of age, 
he can no longer earn much by the exercise of his trade. This 
brother was nicknamed ‘ Botticello,’ ‘the little tub,’ presumably 
on account of his short and tubby figure. That this nickname 
was eventually adopted as surname, not only by Giovanni’s 
younger brother Sandro, but by all the rest of the family as well 
indicates that the eldest son had become a man of wealth and 

9 


SANDEBO BOTTICER ES 


distinction. Rich though he was, in 1457 both he and his 
wife were still living in his father’s house. 

The second son, Antonio, born in 1480, was a goldsmith, 
or rather it would seem, a gold-beater. Vasari’s statement 
that Sandro was first apprenticed to a goldsmith of the name 
of Botticelli is perhaps, like his explanation of this name, merely 
an inaccuracy, for when Sandro left school, presumably about 
the same time as the denunzia of 1457, his father may have 
put him into the gold-beater’s workshop of his elder brother 
Antonio, and Warburg suggests that from there he was trans- 
ferred to Antonio Finiguerra, the goldsmith. We must suppose 
that these men soon recognised Sandro’s exceptional ability 
and procured his admission to the studio of Fra Filippo. The 
third brother, Simone, was only a year older than Sandro. In 
the register of 1457 the father declares with complacence that 
he ‘is on the point of sending Simone to Naples with Pagnolo 
Rucellai.? Simone spent some thirty years in Naples in the 
employ of this eminent merchant; he then returned home and 
stood on particularly intimate terms with his artist brother. 
During the period of unrest when Savonarola was in power, 
Simone wrote reminiscences which are still extant and from 
which we learn a few more interesting details about his brother 
Sandro. 

The circumstances of a lower middle-class Florentine family 
are of little intrinsic interest, but these scanty references deserve 
to be recorded with such particularity because from them we 
not only learn the dates of the chief events in our artist’s life 
and the sort of environment in which it was spent, but also 
we are enabled to draw valuable inferences as to his character 
and temperament and as to the influences that affected his art. 
The depth of feeling, the conscientiousness and piety which are 
eloquent in all his works, are undoubtedly a product of this 
narrow but affectionate home life, which yet afforded full 
scope to the innate vein of humour and joyousness of the 

10 


Piet LCERLUIT*S ANCESTRY 


Tuscan. The tone of his life at home, the age into which he 
was born, and the character of the community could not but 
exercise a most favourable influence on the development of those 
splendid gifts, the rich imagination and lofty sense of beauty, 
which constituted the special genius of the young artist, and in 
which he excelled all his compatriots. We have, unfortunately, 
no definite evidence as to whether Sandro’s mother, Smeralda, 
exercised any marked influence in the moulding of her 
son’s character, but the position occupied by women in the 
Florence of those days permits us to assume that she did. 
The entries in the register of property tell us nothing but 
the name and age of Mariano’s excellent wife, who bore and 
brought up eight children in the course of her long married 
life. 

All the early biographers are agreed that Sandro was a 
pupil of Fra Filippo Lippi. The assertion is not supported 
by contemporary documents, but it is amply confirmed by his 
early paintings. He must have become a pupil of Fra Filippo’s 
at Prato, probably after a short apprenticeship in a goldsmith’s 
workshop, about 1458 or at latest in 1459. The monk was 
then at work in the Cathedral on the finest and most extensive 
series of frescoes which have come down to us from his hand. 
These had been commissioned as early as 1451/52, and he 
continued at work upon them, with considerable interruptions, 
until about 1465. In the spring of 1467 he went to Spoleto 
to decorate the choir of the Cathedral, and died there in 
1469 before the undertaking had been completed. As Botticelli 
became his pupil in 1458 at the earliest, he doubtless remained 
in his studio for several years, perhaps until Fra Filippo moved 
to Spoleto. Vasari tells us that the monk conceived a great 
affection for his pupil and took particular pains with his instruc- 
tion. This is corroborated by the following circumstance: Fra 
Filippo was succeeded as Prior of the Santa Margherita Monastery 
in Prato by Fra Diamante, who had been both his pupil and his 

11 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


collaborator at Prato and Spoleto, and not long after his return 
from Spoleto in 1470, Fra Diamante sent Filippo’s son Filippino, 
then about thirteen years of age, to Sandro as a pupil. We 
do not discover in Filippino’s work any of the peculiar char- 
acteristics of Sandro’s style, so that Sandro’s contribution to 
it can only have been of a subordinate character. In any case 
he did not accompany him to Spoleto; while Fra Filippo was 
at work there, Sandro must already have made his own reputa- 
tion as a painter in Florence, for in the spring of 1470, when he 
was about twenty-five years of age, he was commissioned to 
paint for the Mercanzia a panel required to complete a series 
of the Virtues. Apparently he, instead of Piero Pollajuolo, 
received this commission because the panels already executed 
had not given complete satisfaction. And indeed the panel of 
Fortitude, which Sandro thus came to paint, ranks consider- 
ably higher than the Virtues done by Piero Pollajuolo. The 
whole series is now exhibited in the Uffizi. This work of Sandro’s 
is—as we shall shortly see more in detail—already so original, so 
divergent in some important respects from the art of Fra Filippo, 
that it must have been preceded by a number of other works, 
in which we should expect to find clearer traces of his teacher’s 
influence. Of such pictures we have no contemporary record, 
but paintings hitherto assigned either to the school of Fra 
Filippo or of Botticelli himself, or to Filippino, have been 
claimed as the work of Botticelli while still under Fra Filippo’s 
influence, and this claim has received considerable support. 
We may mention in particular an Adoration of the Kings in the 
London National Gallery, a long and narrow oblong in shape, 
not unlike a cassone panel. This picture was ascribed to Fra 
Filippo in the Palazzo Orlandini, whence the National Gallery 
acquired it, and by the National Gallery itself it was till recently 
supposed to be by his son Filippino. Morelli was the first to 
claim it publicly as Botticelli’s, and Horne has no hesitation 
in taking the same view. 
12 


BOTTICELLI’S ANCESTRY 


The composition of this picture with its numerous small 
figures is very similar to another Adoration of the Kings, 
a tondo, an early work of Fra Filippo’s now in the Cook 
Gallery at Richmond. In both we find the same solemn 
pageantry, the same grouping in the ruins, the same winding 
path between the rocks along which the crowded retinue 
approaches on horseback. The chief group of Virgin and Child 
reveals Filippo’s influence as clearly as the long draperies with 
their deep folds, the fantastic headgear supposed to represent 
turbans, the small heads and hands, the slim youthful types 
of no particular individuality, and the clear rich colouring. On 
the other hand, the compact grouping of the figures, the greater 
repose in arrangement and demeanour, the treatment of the 
folds of drapery, the slender pillars of the antique ruins into 
which the stable is built, and the combination of colours—all 
these are essentially characteristic of Botticelli’s art even in 
the early stages of his development. In the retinue, moreover, 
we see the handsome young equerry, whom we shall meet again 
in the other early representations of the Adoration of the Kings, 
and among the heads, mostly youthful in type but not other- 
wise individualised, we discover on the left among the horse- 
men the elderly man with the pointed black beard and the 
long flowing hair, who later becomes a typical figure in most 
of Botticelli’s paintings. The whole picture bears the stamp 
of Sandro’s early art, and apart from this general impression, 
certain contemporary costumes, the broad bridles of the horses, 
the introduction of a dwarf, a genre-figure never met with in 
the artist’s later work, and the primitive fashion in which, for 
the sake of perspective, a wall is placed right in the foreground 
like a piece of stage scenery—such details enable us to date 
the picture between 1460 and 1470, and probably not long 
after 1465. | 

The National Gallery possesses a second Adoration of the 
Kings which, though formerly also ascribed to Filippino, is 

13 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


likewise an early work of Botticelli’s painted under the influence 
of Fra Filippo. It is a tondo, like the latter’s work in the 
Cook Gallery at Richmond, of which mention has already been 
made. It shows an obvious advance over the young painter’s 
treatment, just described, of the same subject, even though 
the poor state of preservation of the picture unfortunately adds 
to the difficulties in the way of a confident judgment. Even 
in the way the composition is built up the later picture excels 
the earlier. Here Botticelli does not work out his scheme by 
placing groups and single figures side by side in the front of 
the stage, but arranges them one behind the other with a due 
regard for perspective. Consequently we no longer see the 
Holy Family in one corner of the foreground, but in the centre 
and some distance away, beneath the tall, graceful ruins which 
act as a focus for the various groups of figures and are, from the 
point of view of perspective, very skilfully designed and drawn. 
To right and left of the Holy Family and of the kings who are 
kneeling before them, there stands a too-compact crowd of 
courtiers stretching into the background, while the foreground 
is filled with a semicircular company of trumpeters, soldiers, and 
grooms in charge of the horses. In the earlier Adoration the 
shepherds are placed right in the foreground, though at the 
extreme corner of it; here they are behind the ruins and almost 
out of sight. The ox and the ass are similarly placed, whereas 
even Ghirlandajo, in his painting of the Adoration in the Uffizi, 
still accords them the homely privilege of stretching out their 
heads over the Holy Child. 

The artist has here, but already with greater skill, used 
the same device as in the earlier Adoration of the Kings now | 
in London: two mighty blocks of stone are introduced in the 
extreme foreground, to strengthen the perspective and round 
off the groups of figures more sharply. The effect of these 
figures is more plastic and they are already more definitely 
divided into the two types, virile youths and bearded men, 

14 


: BPoOwLIiGELUI’S ANCESTRY 


which later on became customary in his work. The treatment 
of drapery is more artistic and more natural; but we still notice 
that the extremities, and especially the feet, are excessively 
small and drawn with little skill. In the architecture, rich 
though it is, the treatment of form, colour, and design is not 
naturalistic, nor does the treatment of the costumes show any 
sign of the delight, so characteristic of most of Sandro’s con- 
temporaries, in the faithful reproduction of gorgeous fabrics. 
The distant landscape, although the artist allots to it here, 
as in various other pictures of the next few years, a larger space 
than was usual with him, is nevertheless quite subordinate in 
colour and execution; indefinite in character and _ pearl-grey 
in tone, its effect is not unlike that of a neutral-tinted curtain, 
whose function is to throw the figures into stronger relief. How 
very differently did Benozzo Gozzoli, just a few years previously, 
“conceive and carry out his splendid frescoes of the Adoration 
in the chapel of the Medici Palace; there we find a luxuriant 
imaginary landscape effectively treated with strenuous realism, 
the fabric and pattern of the costumes faithfully reproduced in 
all their splendour, and a large number of individualised portraits. 
The perspective, too, of Botticelli’s picture, well thought out 
though it is in draughtsmanship, betrays none of the almost 
ostentatious display common to most of the artists of the age; 
it indicates on the contrary, that he composes in two dimensions 
rather than in three; the component parts of his scheme are 
arranged, not one behind, but one above the other. We already 
see him eschewing the naturalistic enthusiasm of his contempor- 
aries in the interests of greater decorative effect and of the ex- 
pression of his figures; like the transalpine tapestry-makers of 
his day, he inclines to hark back to the Gothic principle of two- 
dimensional treatment. 

Horne dates this tondo of the Adoration about 1476, a little 
earlier than the Adoration in the Uffizi which contains portraits 
of the Medici. This seems to me much too late; the latter 

15 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


picture should also be dated several years earlier than Horne 
supposes, but this London Adoration, closely related as it is to 
the work of Fra Filippo, is markedly antique in character, so 
that it probably dates from a year or two before 1470. The 
Florentine picture reveals a substantial divergence in concep- 
tion and execution; its decidedly naturalistic treatment, a 
feature almost absent in the earlier paintings, reveals that some 
strong new influence was affecting the young artist. The 
painting in which this influence is most characteristically to 
be seen, and a masterly example of this digression in style 
besides being of capital importance for the elucidation of 
Botticelli’s early development as a painter, is the panel in the 
Uffizi which depicts Fortitude enthroned. As already stated, 
this picture, which is in an admirable state of preservation, 
completed a series of panels of the other Virtues, painted by 
Piero Pollajuolo in the years immediately preceding 1470, in 
which year Sandro was commissioned, through the good offices 
of Piero Soderini, to paint the ‘ Fortezza’ for a fee of twenty 
gold florins. Morelli’s refusal to admit this picture as a genuine 
example of Botticelli’s work, although it is vouched for as such 
by his early biographers, is based on a very mistaken conception 
of Botticelli’s art and artistic evolution. Horne corrected this 
mistake, though the original record of Sandro’s commission to 
paint the Fortitude was then still unknown to him; Horne is 
equally correct in assigning to it the date 1468/9. But when 
he claims to find in it the clearest influence of the art of the 
brothers Pollajuoli, when he infers that Sandro owed the com- 
mission to their intervention, when he professes to detect their 
influence again and again in Sandro’s later work, Horne merely 
betrays that he himself is too faithful a disciple of Morelli, who 
fell into deplorable errors through inability to distinguish the 
art and influence of the brothers Pollajuoli from that of Andrea 
Verrocchio, who resembled them; in this instance he even 
found himself in agreement with Cavalcaselle, to whom he 
16 


BorlrLicELLIvS*ANCESTRY 


was usually vehemently opposed. It was neither Antonio 
nor Piero Pollajuolo who influenced the young Botticelli 
after he left Fra Filippo’s studio, but Verrocchio, and he 
contributed substantially to the development of Botticelli’s 
art. 

This factor is so marked in the panel of Fortitude that on 
the strength of it Ulmann declared Botticelli to have actually 
been a pupil of Verrocchio’s. We have no direct evidence that 
Botticelli spent any considerable time in Verrocchio’s studio, 
but the latter’s influence on this and other early paintings of 
Sandro’s is so marked that this hypothesis is by no means 
improbable. A comparison of the Fortitude with Piero’s panels 
of the remaining Virtues shows this most clearly. Instead of the 
stiff, lifeless attitudes and gestures of Piero’s figures, there is 
about Sandro’s a dauntless carriage and unconventional pose 
which admirably express the character represented ; the attitude 
with the head turned away, the mingled firmness and grace 
with which she holds the mace in both hands, are modelled on 
Verrocchio. Instead of Piero’s flat treatment and pale cold 
flesh tints, we find here warm flesh-colouring and vigorous 
modelling with strong shadows; in place of an oval head with 
long straight nose and tired eyes, Sandro’s Fortitude has a 
roundish head with a little tip-tilted nose, a small prominent 
chin, finely moulded mouth and animated eyes under heavy 
lids ; instead of stiff hands with lean fingers, hands with strong 
knuckles and skilfully foreshortened fingers full of movement ; 
and plain drapery instead of rich patterns. While there is a 
similarity in the treatment of the folds, Sandro substantially 
excels Piero in good drawing and modelling; and while Piero 
has a special affection for watered silks and damasks, which he 
turns to happy account for the rich, pictorial effect of his work, 
Sandro never makes use of them. In this picture Sandro, 
evidently with a view to unity of effect in the hall of the Mer- 
canzia for which the whole series of pictures was intended, 

2 17 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


has with great skill adapted the sombre, heavy colour-tones 
characteristic of both the Pollajuoli and to some extent of 
Verrocchio to the colouring of Piero’s panels, though here, 
as in all his pictures, his technique is simple tempera painting, 
though with a greater use of transparent washes. The tech- 
nique of viscous, deeply luminous sandarac paints which iS 
peculiar to the Pollajuoli, and to which their pictures owe 
their highly decorative effect, was never even attempted by 
Sandro. 

This twofold influence, first of Fra Filippo and later of 
Verrocchio, we can trace through a whole series of Madonnas, 
which till lately bore, and, in the galleries in which they hang, 
for the most part still bear, every conceivable name but Botti- 
celli’s. To establish them as early productions of our artist, 
in which we can trace his evolution from the timid pupil of 
Fra Filippo to an independent master, has been my endeavour 
since in the middle seventies of last century the preparation 
of the new editions of Burckhardt’s Cicerone was entrusted to 
my care. My attribution of these pictures to Botticelli has 
been accepted almost unanimously by German and Italian 
investigators ; it has been as definitely rejected by the disciples 
of Morelli, who admit as the undoubted work of Botticelli only 
one picture late in the sequence, the Madonna from the Palazzo 
Chigi, now in the possession of Mrs. Gardner. But, apart from 
the fact that we do not find this mingling of the influence of 
Fra Filippo with that of Verrocchio in the work of any other 
artist, Sandro’s peculiar style may be detected in all these 
Madonnas, and the more advanced they are the stronger it 
appears. Several of these, especially the earliest, are still quite 
clearly modelled on Fra Filippo’s well-known masterpiece in 
the Uffizi, which shows Mary in adoration of the Child whom 
two angels are holding out to her. Even though the awkward 
and immature picture in the Innocenti Hospital at Florence, 
which could almost be described as a free copy of this Madonna, 

18 


BO VTICELLI?S ANCESTRY 


is generally regarded as no more than a production of Fra 
Filippo’s studio, still the freer composition of the Guidi Madonna 
(sold in Rome in 1902), in which the only figures are those of 
Mary and the Child, is clearly recognisable as Botticelli’s later 
style in the head of the Virgin, the proportions of the Child 
and even in the colours. This picture, again, is closely 
related to another Madonna of Fra Filippo’s, which hangs in 
the Pinakothek at Munich. In its expression of grave silence, 
in the Mother’s attitude to the Child, it differs substantially 
from its prototype, and shows the young master already striking 
out a line of his own. In the rocky landscape in the background 
our artist likewise imitates his teacher, but the quaint and 
charming little domed church, which in Fra Filippo’s picture 
at Munich is a free reproduction of the Battistero at Florence, 
is here worked out in pure Renaissance style. 

The motive of Fra Filippo’s picture of the angels handing 
the Child to the Virgin reappears in a similar but much freer 
composition in the Gallery at Naples; here the Virgin’s head 
is from the same model as the head of the Fortitude, and the 
further angel is already a genuine Botticelli type. As in the 
Guidi Madonna, we see in the background the attractive octagonal 
domed building with a cliff behind, and beside it tall cypresses 
against a bright sky. In its dull greyish tone with hardly 
a trace of local colour, as well as in its vague outlines, the 
artist already gives us his later and quite original treatment 
of landscape. The National Gallery and the Gallery at Strass- 
burg each possesses a similar picture of the Madonna with angels 
by her side; in both, the effect of somewhat unlovely and 
immature treatment is increased by the poor state of preserva- 
tion. The Uffizi collection has acquired from Santa Maria 
Nuova a richer example of Botticelli’s style at this period: it 
depicts the Virgin with the Child on her lap, two angels on the 
left and the youthful St. John on the right. Both in its group- 
ing and in its types it resembles the different paintings and 

19 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


reliefs of the same scene that issued from Verrocchio’s studio 
rather than the Madonna of Fra Filippo. Mary’s head is very 
like that of the Fortitude, also in the Uffizi, and the way in 
which the figures are crowded together foreshadows the com- 
position, so characteristic of Botticelli later on, in which figures 
of young angels surround the Madonna in a compact semi- 
circle. 

Probably earlier in date than these pictures come a few 
other Madonnas, in which the Virgin is usually a full-length 
figure. Of these, the ‘Madonna on Clouds’ in the Uffizi, where 
the Virgin is surrounded by a wreath of rosy cherubs, is 
particularly valuable because the original rich Renaissance 
frame has been preserved. Mary is holding the Child, who is 
looking down in benediction on the congregation, tight in her 
arms, and looking at Him with the wistful, almost sad expression 
so characteristic of Botticelliis Madonnas. The group is com- 
pletely rounded off, arranged with great skill in the available 
space, and in exquisite harmony with the original frame, which 
is simple but vigorous in its lines. The richly gilt and painted 
frame with its curious ornamentation blends with the gold in 
the trimming of the dresses, the haloes, and the nimbus in which 
the cherubs are seen, to give a general effect very delicate in 
tone and quite peculiar to Botticelli. The drawing is vigorous, 
the figure of the Child particularly original. 

In the Louvre is another Madonna belonging to this early 
period and exceptional by reason of its small-scale figures. 
Here we see the Virgin sitting on the ground in front of a dark 
curtain with the Child on her lap; she is giving Him a pome- 
granate, and two young angels are standing in veneration on 
one side and three on the other. These attendant figures are 
already posed with much more freedom and skill than in the 
picture acquired by the Uffizi from Santa Maria Nuova; they 
foreshadow the later large circular compositions in which the 
‘Virgin appears surrounded by a group of young angels. To 

20 


BOTTICELLI’S ANCESTRY 


the deep tones of its colour scheme, which is typical of Botticelli, 
this painting owes its delicate harmony and _ exceptional 
charm. 

Yet another Madonna in the Uffizi, a larger one with full- 
length figures, shows Mary offering a pomegranate to the Child 
in her lap, and the Child putting some of the pips into His 
mouth. The head of the Virgin in this admirably preserved 
picture is from the same model as the head of the Fortitude, 
and has the same vigorous flesh tints. Here, and in the Paris 
picture that has just been discussed, Sandro makes the first 
allusion occurring in his representations of the Virgin to the 
Passion of Christ; it is well known that medieval scholasticism 
used the pomegranate as a symbol of the Crucifixion. Apart 
from this, what the painting really portrays is the quiet joy 
of motherhood, as it is represented in the reliefs of such sculptors 
as Antonio Rossellino and Andrea della Robbia. Behind the 
eroup of figures a rose hedge is visible, above which shines a 
patch of sky. Here the artist economised in gold, either from 
choice or from necessity. For at that time rich patrons still 
attached special value to gilding, the cost of which was commonly 
a substantial item in the price of a picture and therefore often 
expressly quoted in the contracts. In consequence of this 
economy the local colours are stronger in effect and the coloured 
fabrics stand out boldly against the dark green hedge. A 
peculiar feature is that Mary is sitting under an arch which is 
supported on either side by two pillars standing close together. 
These pillars have composite capitals, the foliage of which is 
curiously impure and somewhat Gothic in character. This is 
apparently with a view to the frame of the picture which, with 
the foliage on the terminals of its early Gothic arch and its 
twisted columns and ornamentation, exhibits the same impurity 
of style, presumably to suit the Gothic church or chapel in which 
the picture was to hang. From this we see that Botticelli 
attached special importance to the way in which his pictures 

21 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


were framed, a fact demonstrated—as we shall see later on— 
in the most striking fashion by several other pictures by him, 
the authenticity of which cannot be called in question. An 
artist like Giuliano da San Gallo the Elder has been mentioned 
as maker of a frame of this kind for one of Sandro’s altar-pieces, 
but whether he executed the work himself or entrusted it to 
others, the result was most happy, and such as to set off his 
colour scheme to the best advantage. It must, however, be 
admitted that in this Uffizi Madonna, in which the artist was 
faced with the problem of expressing himself in terms of Gothic 
forms alien to his ideas, the solution is not a particularly suc- 
cessful one. 

Another Madonna which belongs to this early period of our 
artist, and is in the Palazzo Corsini at Florence, likewise still 
retains its original tabernacular frame, but this one is in a 
vigorous Renaissance style; unfortunately it has been regilded 
in so unpleasing a manner as actually to damage the effect of 
the delicately conceived picture. Mary is represented as a 
standing half-length figure, embracing the Child who stands at 
her side. The composition reminds us of plastic works of the 
period, especially Desiderio’s well-known Madonna reliefs, of 
later date. The young artist has taken over from his master 
Filippo, who in turn had copied them from Dutch and Flemish 
models, the large window bisected by a column and affording 
a view of a landscape at the back, while the full light falls from 
in front. The proportions of the Child’s body, with its too- 
short legs, are a failure, but the drawing and modelling, especi- 
ally of Mary’s head and hands, are already admirable, surpass- 
ing Fra Filippo and again exhibiting most clearly the influence 
of Verrocchio. Specially charming is the intimate relation 
between Mother and Child, the way Mary is embracing the 
Child and returning His trustful gaze with that half-wistful, 
half-beatific expression in which Sandro is unique. In the pic- 
torial treatment of the relation between Mother and Child, in 

22 


porlLiGCELLI-S:- ANCESTRY 


which the plastic arts had led the way, Botticelli here 
already surpasses both his teachers and his Florentine con- 
temporaries. 

Almost the same grouping and conception appear in a larger 
Madonna in the Louvre, in which the group is increased by the 
addition of the youthful St. John approaching in silent venera- 
tion. The composition is bounded by a hedge, with rose-blooms 
shining out of its green darkness. Drawing and execution are 
still more careful than in the Corsini Madonna, though even 
here the lower half of the Child’s body is a good deal too short, 
while the execution of St. John’s head is too stiff and cold, 
a defect common in greater or less degree to all Botticelli’s 
representations of St. John as a boy. Various critics have on 
this account flatly declined to acknowledge these representa- 
tions as the artist’s work, but they are certainly mistaken. 
Botticelli endeavoured to represent St. John as an ascetic, even 
while still a boy or youth; and as it was repugnant to him to 
do this in naturalistic fashion, he tried to invent a special type 
for the purpose, which, however, did not give a true impression 
of youth and was bound to appear unreal. On the other hand, 
the group of Mother and Child is already rendered by the artist 
with the deepest feeling. The Child is clinging affectionately 
to His Mother, who has both hands round Him and is on the 
point of kissing Him on the forehead: portraying the true joy 
of motherhood, not with loud tempestuous emotion but with 
the restrained, modest, and yet so intimate feeling characteristic 
of Botticelli, and of him alone. -The folds of the thick cloak 
hang heavily, but the thin material of the Child’s garment and 
the transparent veil on the Mother’s head are arranged with 
the greatest taste and delicately executed. Equally attractive 
in execution are the prayer-book in its strong vellum binding 
with clasps and bands, and the transparent golden haloes with 
their dainty ornamentation. 

The Madonna formerly in the Palazzo Chigi, and now in 

23 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


the Gardner Museum in Boston, reveals a very similar composi- 
tion, already maturer in style. Here the place of the boy St. 
John is occupied by a handsome young angel with an olive 
wreath in his hair, who is holding out to the Holy Child a 
delicately chased silver dish containing grapes with ripe ears 
of corn sticking out between them. The Child, who sits on 
Mary’s lap with His right hand raised, is making a sign of 
benediction over the dish, from which Mary is plucking one of 
the ears of corn. These gestures place beyond doubt the mean- 
ing of the gift offered by the angel: ears of corn and grapes— 
bread and wine—symbolise the sacrifice of the death of Christ, 
which Mary accepts on the Child’s behalf, while His benediction 
is a sign of concurrence. The intensely solemn theme of this 
simple picture accounts for the subdued attitude of the group, 
especially in the expression of Mother and Child. But all 
Sandro’s presentations of the Madonna strike a similar note 
more or less clearly ; we generally see the Child holding in His 
hand a pomegranate, the symbol of the Passion, or playing 
with a crown of thorns, or the angels holding out to Him the 
implements of martyrdom, and hence there can be no doubt 
that the artist intended the solemn, often indeed melancholy 
expression of Mother and Child to convey a presentiment of 
Christ’s mission and destiny, much as Donatello had already 
done more dramatically in his reliefs of the Madonna. This | 
symbolic meaning is the real theme of a picture which strikes — 
the casual eye as a simple representation of quiet domestic 
bliss, and surely justifies us in carefully examining striking 
subjects or even subordinate details occurring in other pictures 
by Botticelli, with a view to discovering in them some possible 
underlying significance, and explaining allusions of one kind 
or another. At the same time, such pictures afford a proof 
of the profound religious sense which the artist ever showed. 
both in his art and in his life, even during the period in which, 
carried away by the humanistic movement of the Medici circle, 
24: 


BOTTICELLI’S ANCESTRY 


his ehoice fell by preference on subjects drawn from classical 
antiquity. 

In drawing, modelling, and execution, as well as in composi- 
tion, this Madonna is the latest and most mature of the early 
works of Botticelli now under discussion. It may even be taken 
to be of later date than the Fortitude panel of 1470 as, apart 
from the composition and the figure of the angel, it shows a 
greater divergence from Verrocchio, and reveals the artist in 
the full development of his own style. Moreover, in its details 
this picture affords valuable material for interesting observa- 
tions which corroborate our conclusions as to the early works 
of the artist which have already been discussed. The group 
is bounded at the back by a primitive structure, a sort of lofty 
balustrade of plain columns and panels of stone, whose broad 
apertures afford a view over the landscape. The way in which 
this architectural feature is foreshortened towards the back- 
ground shows that the artist was anxious to increase the per- 
spective effect of his picture. We have already discussed the 
painting in the gallery at Naples, in which the architectural 
background is almost identical, but there it is unpierced and not 
so lofty, so that the landscape is visible above it. In the Madonna, 
too, in the Corsini Gallery, in the Rosebush Madonna, even in 
the Innocenti Madonna, the artist introduces architectonic 
backgrounds with the same object in view, but in each case 
without quite achieving that object. For here, to a much 
greater degree than in the two early versions of the Adoration 
of the Kings in the National Gallery, the composition is con- 
ceived purely in two dimensions, so that the architecture behind 
does not throw the group of figures into relief but actually 
confines it and weighs it down. The same is true of the land- 
scape on the rare occasions in which it is introduced into these 
pictures ; instead of bringing light and air to the group it seems 
more like a mural decoration. Here again we have the old 
Gothic principle to which Boitticelli’s art reverts even though 

25 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


half-unconsciously. The narrow valley up which we look in 
the picture in the Gardner Museum, with its little castle by the 
river and its Gothic village church, resembles the distant land- 
scape in the paintings of Verrocchio and his school, from which 
it is borrowed; but contrasted with these it seems flat, and 
only serves as a decorative background. 

This unusually long series of Madonnas closely related to 
each other forms a chain complete in every link through which 
we can trace—more conclusively than in the case of almost 
any other painter—Botticelli’s artistic descent from Fra Filippo 
and Verrocchio and his gradual evolution to complete individu- 
ality. The period during which these pictures were painted 
is enough to prove that they have been wrongly ascribed to 
Fra Filippo, Filippino, and other artists, and all of them can 
be shown by external evidence as well to belong to the late 
sixties and early seventies of the fifteenth century. Thus, the 
architectural ornamentation is here still impure, as we find 
especially in the capitals, composite in form and fluted in the 
style of Giuliano da San Gallo the Elder and of Giuliano da 
Majano, while from the ’eighties onwards the Corinthian capital 
takes their place, and ornament in general becomes richer and 
more classical. And the costumes, though in Mary’s case the 
fashion of the time is idealised, likewise indicate the end of 
the ’sixties and beginning of the’seventies. The dress with very 
high girdle, beneath which it is gathered in narrow tubular folds, 
the way in which the head-dress is artistically placed on the 
back of the head like a gauze cap, above all the fashion in which 
the hair is worn, point to this period with certainty, for the hair 
is combed straight back from the face so to leave a large 
expanse of bare forehead, a fashion which was adopted by the 
Italian ladies after the middle of the century, and lasted till 
about 1475. The young ladies took it up so thoroughly that 
they gradually lost all their hair on the front part of the head ; 
a high domed forehead was esteemed a mark of special beauty, 

26 


Roo. tCRLLIS ANCESTRY 


and it had to be associated with a tiny nose, a finely moulded 
mouth and a narrow prominent chin in order to win the approval 
of the aristocratic young dandies of Florence. Only after the 
middle of the ’seventies did this fashion gradually die out; the 
hair was then brushed down more over the brow, and at first; 
since it had been combed out altogether on the fore part of the 
head, it was replaced by little curls, then rolled into ringlets 
on the temples, and finally slightly waved, or else done up at 
the back into a thick knot and allowed to fall straight over the 
temples. In all the artist’s early pictures considered in this 
chapter, just as in the figure of Fortitude in the Uffizi, painted in 
1470, Mary was wearing her hair according to the earlier fashion, 
combed straight back and covered with a piece of material 
arranged like a cap. 

This detailed exposition of matters, many of which seem 
trivial in themselves, was necessary because it fixes the period 
in which these pictures, so significant for the early evolution 
of our artist, were painted. It refutes their attribution to pupil 
and disciples of Sandro’s, while the imitation of Fra Filippo 
and Verrocchio, which is more or less marked in all of them, 
points only to the young Botticelli ; no question could arise of their 
being by any other artist. In colour, moreover, as in technique, 
they are quite typical of Sandro, and particularly of his early 
period. Mary regularly wears the crimson dress and over it 
the deep ultramarine cloak lined with dark green; the angels 
have pale lilac, pink or greenish garments. These rich tints 
are considerably toned down by means of milky-white trans- 
parent gauze veils and wraps, as well as of gold ornaments of 
dainty design. It is essentially the same colour scheme that 
we find in Fra Filippo and his disciple Verrocchio, but Botti- 
celli’s tones are deeper than the vivid colours of the monk, 
and compared with the vigorous, rich tones of Verrocchio they 
are subdued by a warm greyish-brown sheen, which Sandro 
obtains through the deep golden tones of the haloes and of the 

27 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


embroideries on the dresses. At the same time, the haloes no 
longer resemble plates, like those of the great naturalistic painters 
of the first generation of the Florentine Renaissance, but are 
formed with great delicacy and taste of light touches of gold 
placed close together. Here, too, Sandro models himself on 
Fra Filippo and Verrocchio, though once again with a style all 
his own; whereas the Pollajuoli scarcely allow the faintest 
gleam of gold to shine behind the heads of their saints. Even 
such apparently trivial details as these contribute something 
to a critical estimate of the pictures, their painters and their 
dates. 

In the work of the epoch-making masters of the first half 
of the fifteenth century pictorial representations of the Madonna 
are met with only very occasionally in Florence, and for the 
most part in altar-pieces rich in figures; the greatest plastic 
artists, with Ghiberti, Donatello and Luca della Robbia at their 
head, had anticipated their younger colleagues the painters 
and had made the representation in relief of the Mother of 
God and her Son their own peculiar province, thereby consider- 
ably encouraging the spread of Mariolatry. By working in 
clay and making copies in coloured stucco they had, moreover, 
discovered a method of placing this most attractive ornament of 
living-room or bedroom within the reach even of people of 
small means. Fra Filippo was the first to win the Florentine 
public back to paintings of the Madonna; inspired by him, 
Verrocchio and his pupils extended their scope, but it was 
Botticelli who first invested them with entirely novel charm, 
so that through him—as simultaneously through Mantegna 
and Bellini in Venice and through Leonardo in Lombardy— 
the pictorial representation of the Virgin once again became the 
favourite subject of the Florentine public. A comparatively 
large number of Madonnas from Sandro’s own hand are extant ; 
far more numerous are the reproductions and free imitations 
from his studio by his pupils and pupils’ pupils, till the young 

28 


BOTTICELLI’S ANCESTRY 


Raphael took up the subject with enthusiasm and, under the 
inspiration of Leonardo, infused new life into it. In the various 
phases of his career, Sandro develops the Madonna picture in 
several distinct ways, so that we shall more than once have 
occasion to return to the topic. 


29 


CHAPTER III 


BOTTICELLY’S EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


lated to one another, and in both the representations of 

the ‘ Adoration of the Kings’ in the National Gallery, 
Sandro’s evolution as a pupil of Fra Filippo and Verrocchio 
can be clearly traced. But in such paintings as the ° Fortezza ’ 
in the Uffizi Gallery and the Madonna in Mrs. Gardner’s col- 
lection, which we have already cited as an argument in favour 
of attributing these earliest works to Sandro, all evidence of 
apprenticeship is already completely eliminated. In them the 
artist takes an independent yet equal place beside such masters 
as Verrocchio and the two Pollajuoli, and with them there 
begins a period of activity during which, in the plastic curves 
of his figures, in their powerful forms and vigorous movement, 
the young artist associates himself with the naturalistic trend 
of the greatest Florentine bronze modellers and painters; and 
the results he obtained set him in the front rank of the artists 
of his native city. The recognition his works brought him, 
the connections he gained through them, particularly in the 
circle of humanists gathered round the Medici, and the fresh 
important commissions he received in consequence, enabled 
him rapidly and fully to develop his own genius. 

To the same period and style as the ‘ Fortitude’ in the 
Uffizi belong also two other little pictures which represent 
scenes in the life of Judith, and which were probably originally 
intended for the decoration of some piece of furniture. In 

30 


[ these pictures of Madonnas, all different, yet closely re- 


EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


the sixteenth century they adorned the studio of the Grand 
Duchess Bianca Capello, and they now hang in the Uffizi. One 
depicts the young heroine returning to Bethulia from the enemy 
camp, followed by her maid bearing the trophy on her head. 
The companion picture shows the discovery by his followers 
of the corpse of Holofernes in his tent. In spite of the fact 
that we possess no documentary evidence concerning these 
two barely span-high panels, nor any information of earlier 
date than the sixteenth century, their authenticity has never 
been doubted, and they are universally looked upon as youth- 
ful works produced soon after 1470. Their connection with 
the ‘ Fortezza’ of the same year is unmistakable; the head 
of Judith is from the same model and evidently painted almost 
at the same time, and even the diadem in the hair is not 
wanting. Added to this, the influence of Verrocchio still makes 
itself strongly felt, especially in Judith. Not only in the head 
of the sweet young heroine, which is very similar in drawing 
and treatment to Verrocchio’s angel in the Baptism of Christ, 
but also in the conception and disposition of the scene, which 
takes place on a height rising above valleys, and in Judith’s 
vigorous gait and the way in which she turns slightly towards 
her maid, this panel clearly betrays its dependence on Ver- 
rocchio’s ‘ Journey of the little Tobias with the three Arch- 
angels’ in the Uffizi Gallery at Florence, and particularly on 
the central group, Raphael with Tobias. We have also, in the 
Turin gallery, a well-known work by the Pollajuoli on the same 
subject—the young Tobias on the return journey with the 
angel Raphael, and a comparison between this and Verroc- 
chio’s picture illustrates very clearly the difference between 
the two masters, and proves that young Botticelli was influ- 
enced wholly by Verrocchio and not by the Pollajuoli. The 
restrained movement, the pathetic way in which the young 
heroine turns towards the maid, the full, rounded folds which 
so expressively portray movement, the clear colour-tones of 
31 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


dawn, we find them all foreshadowed in Verrocchio’s Tobias 
picture in the Uffizi, whereas the Turin painting by Piero Polla- 
juolo, in the awkward disposition of the two figures, as they 
rush headlong with stumbling gait, in their stiff, heavy hair, 
in the deep, saturated colours of the garments and the insipid 
haphazard formation of their folds, marks a naturalistic artist 
of fundamentally different tendencies. 

Although I emphasise here Sandro’s dependence on Ver- 
rocchio in types and compositions with the object of revealing 
the true course of the artist’s studies, which is still often misunder- 
stood, yet it must be insisted all the more strongly that Sandro, 
then about twenty-five or twenty-six years of age, was already 
in full possession of his own individual manner, and indeed, 
that these two pictures, small though they are and merely 
intended as decoration for furniture, are among his most charm- 
ing and stimulating works and reveal him happy and successful 
in the treatment of dramatic themes to a degree scarcely attained 
in any of his later works. Their wonderful effectiveness is 
due partly to their limited size and the free treatment allowed 
by their decorative purpose, partly to the fresh impressions 
of Sandro’s naturalistic schooling which had ended only a few 
years before, and above all to the youthful freshness with which 
he brings his innermost feelings and his artistic will and 
power fully and freely into play. 

This effect is equally strong in the ° Discovery of the Body 
of Holofernes’; in spite of its very different subject. Instead 
of the simple presentation of only two figures as in the ‘ Judith,’ 
in which the psychological interest rests chiefly on the contrast 
between the distinguished bearing of the young heroine with 
her expression half of conscious victory, half lost in dreams, 
and the clumsy, rustic figure of the faithful maid hurrying 
after her, in this picture the composition is filled almost to the 
very edge with figures crowded together into the narrow space 
in the tent behind the corpse. Instead of the lofty mood of 

32 


EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


Judith’s triumph, the scene here depicted is a gruesome one; 
the grief and horror aroused by a dreadful murder. On the 
left, over the headless corpse of the king which lies outstretched 
in the foreground naked on a couch, a young warrior is bending 
and carefully pulling the sheet off the dead; behind him stand 
a number of high officials in silent grief, whilst on the right 
several warriors on foot and on horseback press forward and 
express their emotion. The rich fullness of the composition 
is matched by its clearness, its simple balance on either side 
of the small vista in the middle, and the admirable way in 
which it is built up from the widely spread out corpse low down 
in the foreground, to the towering figures behind. In the matter 
of colour also the two pictures present considerable and cleverly 
calculated contrasts: instead of the delicate tones in the un- 
certain light of dawn as in ‘ Judith,’ the colours in ‘ Holofernes ’ 
are rich and vivid against the great lilac curtain of the tent. 
But in spite of all these contrasts one basic feature is common 
to both pictures: that of restraint, there in the joy of triumph, 
here in grief; there in the dreamy musing of the young heroine, 
here in the silent pain of the dead prince’s men. This delicate 
reserve in such varied expressions of lamentation, this silent 
restraint of even the strongest feelings, which is peculiar to 
Botticelli’s paintings in his prime and constitutes one of their 
special charms, is here already present in full measure. In the 
admirably foreshortened body of Holofernes, as also in the 
treatment of the head in the servant’s basket in the companion 
picture, Sandro avoided giving even a hint of the frightful 
death struggle which must have been inseparable from such 
dismemberment. That was repugnant to his sense of beauty, 
and so he gave even to the trunk an appearance of slumber. 
The same tasteful and simple presentment of the male nude, 
which we see here painted with ease and certainty, although 
almost in miniature, is shown again in the careful perfection of 
the ‘St. Sebastian’ which has found its way to the Berlin 
3 33 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


gallery from Santa Maria Maggiore. It was stated already by 
the Anonimo, that is to say, by a younger contemporary of 
Sandro’s, that this picture was painted in January, 1473 (new 
style 1474), the assertion probably being based on an inscrip- 
tion on the original frame which now no longer exists. The 
picture is conceived and executed throughout in the artist’s 
own individual style. The saint, who is seen almost full face, 
stands high up in the open air, fettered to a tree stump. The 
body is a vigorous nude, presented in simple but bold propor- 
tions. The features wear that expression characteristic of the 
artist, half wistful, half dreamy, and here entirely in keeping 
with his theme. 

The same composition can be observed in the well-known 
‘St. Sebastian’ by Antonio Pollajuolo, which now adorns the 
National Gallery, but, as this picture was painted in 1475, 
that is to say, from one to two years later, the assertion that 
Sandro was influenced by Antonio cannot be correct. On the 
contrary, the latter could have been influenced by Sandro’s 
picture, although in Pollajuolo’s representation of the martyr- 
dom of the saint the archers form almost the chief feature, and the 
rich landscape of the Arno in the background contributes sub- 
stantially to the whole effect, whereas Sandro only vaguely 
indicates the retiring executioners in the far distance and sub- 
ordinates the landscape, introducing it in uniform grey tints 
merely for decorative purposes. For him the background is 
nothing but the neutral scenic curtain against which the body 
of the saint shall stand out, as is also the case in his picture of 
Judith, which can have originated only a few years earlier. 
In both paintings the young artist endeavours to present his 
figures in the open, suffused with light and air, and in this he 
goes considerably further than Verrocchio in his pictures of 
Tobias and his ‘ Baptism of Christ.2 Was Sandro influenced 
by the frescoes (since unfortunately lost) in Santa Maria Nuova 
in Florence painted by Domenico Veneziano and his pupil 
34 


EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


Piero della Francesca a generation earlier, or by later works 
of the latter, more strongly than Verrocchio, the Pollajuoli, 
and Baldovinetti, who all owed to the example of Piero’s work 
some of the essential features in their lighting and colouring 
and in the arrangement of their compositions against the land- 
scape, as also in their conception of it? But even here Sandro 
did not attain to a true aerial perspective, such as that exhibited 
by Piero’s fully plastic figures bathed in light. In ‘ Sebastian’ 
as in ‘Judith’ the artist gets no further than a delicate clear- 
ness of tone over the whole which almost entirely subdues the 
true natural colours. In his later works he completely dis- 
regarded all considerations of aerial perspective as it did not 
accord with his style, and landscape was to him no more than 
the background is to the photographer. 

The fact that the artist subordinated his landscapes deliber- 
ately we learn from a note in Leonardo’s * Trattato della Pintura.’ 
‘Our Botticelli,’ says his not much younger countryman ‘ will 
not hear of landscape painting; he used to say that you need 
only throw a sponge soaked in many colours against a wall, 
and you will see quite a pretty landscape in the resulting stain.’ 
If in spite of this, the landscapes in the background of some of 
Botticelli’s early works do play a not unimportant part, still 
their whole purpose, as already indicated, is merely decorative. 
Nevertheless, they offer an additional interest in the scenes 
they represent; hardly ever do they remind us of the artist’s 
home, that lovely valley of the Arno which all his contempor- 
aries use with pride as the background for historic themes of 
every kind. Sandro’s backgrounds have scarcely any particular 
local character, but in the walled towns and numerous churches 
with slender Gothic spires, in the mighty castles with their 
lofty gatehouses and little, pointed, Gothic towers, in the 
fortified harbours with their piers and moles, such as we find 
particularly in ‘ St. Sebastian,’ in the tondo of the * Adoration of 
the Kings ’ in the National Gallery, in the frescoes of the Sixtine 

35 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


chapel, and even in the later ‘ Annunciation’ in the Uffizi, we 
discover fantastically transformed reminiscences of Dutch pic- 
tures and Burgundian-French miniatures of the time of the Duc 
de Berry and of Philip the Good of Burgundy. Had the young 
artist already become acquainted with such scenes in the art 
treasures and books of the Medici? To him these medieval 
towns and castles, which he naively used in scenes from the 
Life of Christ, in ‘Moses on Mount Sinai,’ in the ‘ Adoration at 
Bethlehem,’ and in other themes, seemed specially suitable as 
a picturesque characteristic of a long-past age. . 

In the same period as these pictures, that is before the middle 
of the ’seventies, we must place the inception of the first large 
altar-piece, which now appears to be banished to the store-room 
of the Uffizi, the ‘Madonna Enthroned with Six Saints.’ This 
picture, which came from Sant’ Ambrogio, is not vouched for 
as Botticelli’s work by records of any antiquity. As it is badly 
disfigured by old attempts at repainting, especially in the central 
figures, and has thereby lost its charm and partly even its 
character, criticism has mostly refrained from agreeing to its 
ascription to Botticelli. Horne scarcely mentions the panel, 
Morelli declares it to be a production of Botticelli’s studio, and 
Cavalcaselle goes so far as to pronounce it a work of Andrea 
del Castagno. Both statements are refuted, though in different 
ways, on the evidence furnished by the costume of the saints 
represented. The costume of the two female saints, Magdalene 
and Catherine, the only well-preserved figures, is far too late 
for us to think of Castagno, who died as early as 1457. But 
it is too early to be the work of Sandro’s pupils, as the garments, 
and above all the manner of dressing the hair, point with 
certainty to the period shortly after 1470. At that time, how- 
ever, the young artist, who would scarcely yet have older pupils, 
would certainly not have entrusted his first large commissioned 
altar-piece to the hands of apprentices. Further, such portions 
of the picture as are well preserved, or sufficiently so to allow 

36 


EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


of any definite opinion, exhibit a truly Botticellian character. 
The two holy women accord absolutely with the female types 
in such of Sandro’s youthful works as we are so far acquainted 
with ; the drawing of their extremities, the draping, the vivid 
colours, amongst which the lilac and pink peculiar to Botticelli 
specially strike us, are characteristic of our artist and of no 
one else. ‘Then the kneeling saints, Cosmas and Damian, in their 
bearing and drapery, as well as in the characteristic red of their 
diaconal vestments, reveal Sandro’s own peculiar style. This 
is also true of the architectural outlines of the interior, in the 
ornament of the plinth and the hues of the coloured marble 
panels on the walls. The kneeling deacons are the patron 
saints of the Medici, and, as this picture was obviously painted 
for them, and these saints reveal certain portrait features, we 
should no doubt recognise in them the donors, members of the 
Medici family. This assumption is rendered more probable 
by the fact that the features of Damian on the right are identical 
with those of the young man on the right below Giuliano in the 
‘ Adoration of the Kings’ in the Uffizi, who also adopts the 
same kneeling posture. In its arrangement in a narrow chapel- 
like space and in the manner in which the Madonna is enthroned 
in a shallow niche, while each standing saint is placed in front 
of one of the large marble panels adorning the walls, Sandro 
adheres to Florentine standards of contemporary or preceding 
times. This is shown by an altar-piece, dated 1471, of * St. Anne 
and two others,’ by Cosimo Rosselli, in the Berlin gallery, and 
other pictures. 

How great a reputation the young artist already enjoyed 
among his colleagues in Florence is demonstrated by the cir- 
cumstance that they had him in view for an extensive decora- 
tion in fresco. In the year 1474 he received from the Opera 
del Duomo in Pisa a commission to paint an Assumption of 
the Virgin Mary in fresco. For this he received the consider- 
able part-payment of 150 lire, but after that the work came 

37 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


to a standstill and appears ultimately to have been abandoned. 
In any case it did not lead to the intended participation with 
Benozzo Gozzoli in the fresco decoration of the Campo Santo, 
for which that fresco of the Assumption was to have been 
a test piece. The well-known engraving of the same subject, 
of which only the one copy in the Uffizi is still preserved, 
was, as we shall see farther on, executed from a much later 
composition of the artist’s. 

The altar-piece mentioned above with Cosmas and Damian 
has the further special interest that therein we can for the 
first time establish the artist in direct connection with the 
Medici family. Through these family saints the picture proves 
itself at once a glorification and a bequest of the Medici; in 
the two saints kneeling before the Madonna the artist had 
to paint the likenesses of two members of the family, the donors 
of the picture. Possibly the two little panels of the story of 
Judith were also painted for one of the Medici; in any case 
the young rider behind the corpse of Holofernes ostentatiously 
displays the Medici crest, the three feathers, on his cloak. That 
Sandro was already one of the artistic advisers of the family 
is proved by the commission for the great festival tournament 
on January 28, 1475, given him by Giuliano de’ Medici, who 
also employed Andrea del Verrocchio for this work, namely 
the decoration of his banner with a Pallas before whom burn- 
ing faggots are flaming up, the emblem of the dare-devil young 
Giuliano, the darling of the Florentines, who had emerged from 
that tournament as victor. This banner, which was still men- 
tioned in an inventory of the Medici property at about the 
beginning of the sixteenth century, now no longer exists. The 
* Pallas with the Centaur’ which has only lately come to light 
again in the Pitti palace, has as little connection with the com- 
position of this banner, an exact description of which has been 
preserved to us, as an old Florentine tapestry of Pallas now 
in French private ownership, which can also be traced to 

38 


EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


Botticelli. The Pallas executed in mosaic by Baccio Pontelli 
on a door in the ducal palace at Urbino is also a recollection of 
Sandro’s production and not a copy of it. On the other hand, 
a drawing in the Uffizi with a standing Pallas, holding a helmet 
in her right hand, should probably be reckoned a study for the 
banner. 

Botticelli takes us right into the circle of this great family, 
whose members remained his chief patrons up to Savonarola’s 
tragic end, by means of a picture which is one of the most 
original of his masterpieces, the ‘ Adoration of the Kings’ in 
the Uffizi, the chief work of this early naturalistic period of the 
artist, which inclined to plastic curves, chiaroscuro, and pictur- 
esque effect. But this masterpiece was preceded by another 
picture on the same theme, the ‘ Adoration of the Kings’ in 
the Hermitage Gallery at Petrograd, which must therefore be 
considered first. H. Horne, influenced by a statement of the 
Anonimo that Sandro painted a panel of the Adoration during 
his sojourn in Rome, places it as late as about 1482, but it can 
only be understood correctly as a preliminary step to the Adora- 
tion in the Uffizi. It is a horizontal panel, and, like the earlier 
large London tondo, depicts the Holy Family in the centre of 
the picture, set far back in a classic ruin poorly covered over 
by a wooden roof. The columns, with their composite capitals 
and heavy fantastic entablature, already show a great advance 
on the earlier picture, notably in the comprehension of archi- 
tectural forms, which, however, give no indication of any 
acquaintance with the classic buildings of Rome. The cavalcade, 
which in the London picture occupies the whole foreground, 
is here pushed quite into the background behind the worshipping 
retinue of the kings, who, kneeling or standing, form an 
elliptical curve to right and left stretching towards the ruin, 
in front of which the kings themselves lay out their gifts. The 
landscape, low hills with scattered trees and further remains 
of ancient buildings, here occupies more space than in almost 

39 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


any other painting with the exception of the Roman frescoes. 
But the outlines of the landscape are so insignificant, the deep 
grey-green colouring of the hills and trees is so uniform that 
here again it merely serves as a neutral ground for giving full 
effect to all the plastic form and colouring of the scene. The 
sroup of the Holy Family is almost identical with that in the 
Uffizi picture, in which, however, it has an effect of greater 
completeness and freedom. 

In both pictures the Virgin has the same over-slender figure, 
and the Child in the act of benediction is again too small, exactly 
as in the London tondo. The colouring is rich and powerful 
and in all Sandro’s most characteristic hues, which are, however, 
finely toned down; the folds of the long travelling-cloaks stand. 
out in both pictures, long and heavy, the fabrics as yet hardly 
differentiated. The drawing is careful, but the feet, and par- 
ticularly the hands, are, as in all the early pictures, even in 
the Judith scenes, too small, and foreshortened with little 
skill. The bridles are still broad and coloured, as was the 
fashion in the ’sixties and the beginning of the ’seventies. The 
heads also present types of the earlier period, graceful youths 
and venerable greybeards; only a few have any character of 
portraiture, and these few suffice to give us the necessary clues 
as to the period to which to ascribe the picture. One of the 
kings, the one kneeling on the right, has exactly the same 
musing profile and almost the same bearing as the kneeling 
Saint Damian, protector of the Medici, in the Uffizi altar-piece. 
And in the figure kneeling right in front on the left we recognise 
a study of the same young man. A second worshipper, the 
one farther in front on the left, Piero de’ Medici, Lorenzo’s 
father, appears again (as we shall see presently) in the ‘ Adora- 
tion’ in the Uffizi, only here the profile faces the other way 
and is still more foreshortened, but the high, bald forehead 
is unmistakable. A third excellent portrait figure is notice- 
able on the same right side in the middle of the worshipping 

40 


EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


followers, the majestic old man in the ermine collar, seen quite 
in profile. Is this Cosimo, whom we discover in the Uffizi 
picture in the most prominent position? The profile is similar, 
but the toothless mouth is here more fallen in. Anyhow, these 
few portraits show that this picture also originated in connection 
with the Medici, whether or not entirely to their order does 
not really matter, as the origin of the Uffizi picture will show. 

The * Adoration of the Kings’ in the Uffizi shows a further 
advance in the composition of the same scene which is obviously 
a favourite with the artist and one often commissioned from 
him. In the early tondo on this theme in the National Gallery, 
the example of his teacher, Fra Filippo, unmistakably betrays 
itself, but already in the Hermitage picture, and still more so 
here, we see how Sandro attained to his full individuality by 
way of the school of Verrocchio. This is at once evident in 
the composition, which, as in the Petrograd picture, is a reversion 
from the circle to the square. In its arrangement, however, 
it still reminds us of the group of kings in the background who 
kneel in adoration before the Child and whose followers have 
solemnly grouped themselves beside the Family. But the 
retinue with the horses in the foreground, which in the London 
* Adoration’ is almost the chief feature, and in the Petrograd 
picture is pushed into the background, is here entirely omitted ; 
thus, what in the style of Fra Filippo appeared as a popular 
festival, here becomes a solemn ceremony of homage by aristo- 
cratic dignitaries. Here also the artist depicts the chief group, 
the Holy Family, certainly in a raised position, but still like 
the Holy of Holies, in the middle distance, to right and left 
the festive company in their travelling-costumes, while kneeling 
in the centre, approaching the Child Christ with their gifts, 
the three kings complete the circle of worshippers. The scene 
is set within the walls of an ancient ruin poorly covered by a 
wooden roof and leaning against a rock. On each side there 
is a narrow vista of landscape, that on the left showing a 

Al 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


magnificent antique structure of arches. The imagination of the 
artist, who shows in his architectural backgrounds, and also in 
other accessories, such a fine taste for spacious edifices in the 
classic style of the early Renaissance at its zenith, here creates 
structures which, both in their slender proportions and in their 
splendour, recall Roman buildings in Syria. For the ass and 
the ox, which used still to figure modestly in the background 
of Sandro’s earlier Adoration pictures, there is no room left 
in this illustrious company. In their stead one aristocratic 
bird, a magnificent peacock, is giving itself airs on the masonry 
As in the Holofernes picture, the narrow view of landscape 
whose outlines are only very vaguely indicated in the clear, 
colourless mist, is only introduced by the artist in order that, 
in the delicate chiaroscuro and in the reflection of the light 
streaming from outside and off the white walls, the figures 
should appear by contrast more plastic and bright in colour. 
In this respect the painting is still closely related to the * Forti- 
tude’ of about 1470, but in wealth, vigour, and depth of colour- 
ing it surpasses it. The group of the Holy Family—the figures 
simple and lovable in conception, the Child disproportionately 
small, Joseph a worthy, kindly family man—in the distance 
at which it is seen and in the strong reflected light, shows delicate, 
pale tones; the costumes of the lordly figures of the worship- 
ping kings and their rich following appear by contrast all the 
more vigorous in colouring. The colours are those which are 
henceforth peculiar to Sandro: several vivid reds, deep green, 
yellow, lilac, and blue, sometimes in several shades and toned 
down by rich, finely designed golden ornaments. In form and 
in design, in the flowing lines of the garments and in their 
tasteful arrangement, in the careful finish, even showing the 
various fabrics, Sandro never did anything greater. 

This picture is already referred to by a younger contemporary 
of Sandro’s as on an altar in Santa Maria Novella, and it was 
praised as one of the artist’s masterpieces by Vasari, who 

42 


/ 


EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


already calls attention to the fact that in the heads of the three 
kings, Cosimo de’ Medici, Pater Patriz, and his two sons, Piero 
and Giovanni, are to be recognised. The retinue also consists 
throughout of portrait figures with individual features and 
dressed in the costume of the period. For this reason, now 
that the picture has again come into favour and been recognised 
as Botticelli’s work, likenesses of other members of the Medici 
family and their circle have been sought amongst these figures, 
and the origin of the picture has been traced to an order of 
Lorenzo’s. But lately Mesnil and Horne have established that 
it was painted to the order of a certain Guasparo di Zanobi del 
Lama for his altar in the Novella chapel. This well-to-do 
merchant, a member of a small Florentine family which never 
attained to any distinction (his father was a barber), had had 
Lorenzo’s forbears portrayed with him and his kinsfolk as 
the kings and their followers, just as Francesco Sassetti in his 
frescoes in Santa Trinita had Lorenzo il Magnifico, with his 
boys and their tutors, introduced in the foreground amongst 
members of his own family by Ghirlandajo. Horne recognises 
only ideal figures in most of those represented, with the excep- 
tion of the three ancestors of Lorenzo, the donor, del Lama, 
and the painter, Sandro. The donor he identifies in the defiant 
young horseman on the extreme left, whose hands are clasped 
on the hilt of his sword. The harsh, strongly marked features 
of this man who stands so prominently and nonchalantly in 
the foreground are, however, unmistakably those of the young 
Lorenzo, and have, through comparison with busts, medals, 
and other authentic portraits, been recognised as his by almost 
everyone. Even the little trait of his passion for thoroughbred 
horses Sandro has cleverly indicated here; the favourite steed 
of the young Medici, a grey, whose head is just visible behind 
him, is depicted jealously trying to push away from his master 
the arm of the friend who clasps Lorenzo in his embrace. It 
is also highly typical of Lorenzo’s character that, although 
43 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


well in the front of the picture, he is yet content to figure in 
the corner and be clad in a simple riding-shirt, just as in life he 
occupied as retiring a position as possible in order to avoid being 
regarded as an aspirant to a tyrant’s power. 

Opposite the young Lorenzo, on the extreme right of the 
picture and also seen full face, stands another young man, stately 
and with beautiful features, gazing out upon the spectator, and 
particularly striking on account of his ample orange cloak 
draped in such splendid folds. He is universally identified as 
the artist, even by Horne. The way in which this individual 
is depicted looking straight into the eyes of the beholder at once 
suggests that it is his own portrait. According to our modern 
conception of the importance of Art, and having regard to the 
social position of artists at the present day, it is quite compre- 
hensible, and even a matter of course, to see the painter of a 
picture in the same rank and in such close connection with 
his great Mecenas, and to take it for granted that they are on 
friendly terms. But olden times thought otherwise of the matter ; 
the position of an artist in the Quattrocento was very different 
from that in the Cinquecento, and still more so from what it is 
to-day. In those days, when, by way of exception, an artist 
introduced his own portrait into a painting, it was always 
modestly placed in some subordinate position—to illustrate this 
I need only call to mind Benozzo’s likeness of himself in the 
frescoes of the Medici chapel. Further, in point of age, it 
does not seem to agree with Sandro’s, who, when he painted 
this picture, was some thirty years old, whereas the person here 
depicted appears to be a man of twenty-five at the most; and 
moreover, the magnificent, long, golden-yellow mantle which 
he is wearing seems equally unsuitable for an artist of that 
period. Besides, the attested portrait of his teacher, Sandro, 
which Filippino painted some eight years later in the Carmine 
frescoes, reveals quite another figure and different features. 
Instead of the tall, stately youth with regular, strikingly beauti- 

44 


pameey NATURALISTIC WORKS 


ful features, as in this Epiphany picture, Sandro, in his recognised 
portrait in the fresco of the crucifixion of St. Peter, appears 
of small stature—Filippino at his side overtops him by half a 
head—and with fine features, but looking delicate and sickly. 
‘Sickly’ his father already calls the thirteen-year-old son in his 
return for taxation in the year 1457, and according to Vasari’s 
account, in his old age the artist could only move about on 
two crutches. This portrait, which is reproduced in Plate II of 
this volume, differs greatly from the portrait of the youth in the 
Adoration, whom we must conclude to be one of the Medici. 
Giuliano, the brother of the Magnifico, whom we should 
have expected to find in this position, stands in the second row, 
somewhat hidden, but still rendered conspicuous by his thick 
black hair and his great stature. Various other portraits of 
Giuliano, both paintings and busts, reliefs and medallions, leave 
us in no doubt as to his identity, especially as they mostly 
present him in the same profile position and at the same age. 
Amongst the remaining figures with noticeable individualisa- 
tion—a few others, particularly those of which only part of 
a face is visible, are obviously merely introduced to round off 
the composition—any attempt to determine the individuals 
they are supposed to represent will rarely be successful, especi- 
ally as Sandro here already inclines to typify even his por- 
traits. Yet these, too, we may suppose to be portraits of the 
Medici and families allied to them, and we must always be 
erateful for the efforts still made to find the right name for 
individual unknown figures in these magnificent groups. Names 
such as Angelo Poliziano, Lorenzo Torrigiani and his father 
Giovanni, and Filippo Strozzi, have been put forward amongst 
others, but these suggestions can scarcely be upheld either from 
a consideration of the age at which they would have been repre- 
sented here or from comparison with medallions and other 
portraits of them. In the determination of likenesses one must 
always be very careful; it is so easy to think one detects a 
AS 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


resemblance! Nevertheless, the identity of the elderly man on 
the right in front of the wall, said to be Filippo Strozzi, who 
looks out from the picture and by this means has already been 
rendered conspicuous by the artist, can at least be established 
with considerable probability. Not, to be sure, as Filippo 
Strozzi, with whom it agrees neither in age nor features, but 
as the donor of the painting, Guasparo del Lama, as Jacques 
Mesnil, the praiseworthy discoverer of the origin of the picture, 
has already pointed out. Even if this insignificant man desired 
to commend himself to the all-powerful Lorenzo by having him, 
his relatives and friends represented in the foreground of the 
picture, still that did not prevent him from having himself and 
his own kinsmen portrayed with them. Beside him there are 
modestly introduced as wall-flowers in the second row, five 
more of his relations who, by their honest, broad faces, the 
similarity of their profiles and clear, light eyes, are recognisable 
as brothers and sons, or other members of the same family. 

The painting of this picture is usually ascribed to about 
the year 1478, sometimes a little before, sometimes after the 
death of Giuliano, who was murdered during the celebration 
of High Mass on April 26, in the cathedral at Florence by the 
Pazzi and their fellow-conspirators. But, both from the colour- 
ing, the chiaroscuro, the strongly plastic modelling, and from 
the age of the persons represented, particularly Lorenzo’s, 
whose features were so soon disfigured by the gout of which he 
died after long suffering at the early age of forty-three, the 
origin of the picture can be placed several years earlier, about 
1475 or 1476. Moreover, the extraordinarily fresh likeness of 
Giuliano, so full of vigour, proves that it must still have been 
painted from life. 

This magnificent picture, which arouses our interest in 
almost every individual figure and gives rise to many a query, 
‘is also as a whole one of the most outstanding works of the 
master, and one of the most important for his proper under- 

A6 


EARLY NATURALISTIC WORKS 


standing. Here Botticelli shows himself eminently superior to 
his contemporaries, who naively introduced this or that portrait 
figure or whole portrait groups haphazard into their historical 
compositions, in that he leads the eye from one noble figure to 
the other, from one group to another, and yet always back to 
the centre, to the chief representation, just as he rounds off the 
many details to a clear and splendid unity, in that he—more 
than anyone before or since—dares to place the entire holy 
scene with its wealth of figures right in his own times and to 
present it through the medium of genuine portrait figures, and 
in that he, by these very means, has created the most harmonious 
of historical pictures. No other picture gives so living and 
distinguished a conception of the race that ushered in and 
developed the golden age of the Renaissance. 


AT 


CHAPTER IV 


MYTHOLOGICAL AND ALLEGORICAL SCENES COMMISSIONED 
BY THE MEDICI 


HE close relationship with Lorenzo il Magnifico and 
his circle, placed beyond doubt by all these pictures 


and commissions of the early ’seventies, is still more 
clearly shown in the following years. In 1475 Sandro, as we 
have seen, painted the Pallas banner for Lorenzo’s brother 
Giuliano; only a few years later, on April 26, 1487, the foul 
murder of this darling of the Florentines became the sad occasion 
for several commissions from Lorenzo. Just as, forty years 
before, when Cosimo had returned from exile, Castagno was 
required to paint the traitors on the facade of the Bargello, so 
it was now designed to depict on the same palace the murderers 
and their instigators, and foremost amongst them the member 
of the Pazzi family, after whom indeed the conspiracy is known. 
On July 21 Sandro received from the Signoria forty gold florins 
for the execution of this work. He had to represent the 
murderers as hanged, one of them strung up by the foot. 
Amongst them was the Archbishop of Pisa, Francesco Salviati, 
whose portrait was, however, struck out at the end of the follow- 
ing year at the request of Pope Sixtus IV, with whom Florence 
desired to make peace, whereas the others, together with those 
painted by Castagno, were not destroyed till after the banish- 
ment of the Medici in 1494. Nothing is left to remind us of 
them beyond a little drawing of Leonardo’s which represents 
Bernardo Bandini, hanged, on the wall of the Bargello palace, 

48 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


apparently, however, done from nature, and not after Sandro’s 
fresco. 

It was also at Lorenzo’s instance that the artist at this time 
repeatedly painted the likeness of the murdered Giuliano. Of 
one of these portraits two copies are known almost exactly 
similar, one in the gallery at Bergamo, the second in the Berlin 
Gallery ; of these the latter is the best, and it alone can be 
ascribed to the artist’s own hand. The Bergamo copy shows 
this youth, who was renowned for his beauty and who only 
attained his 26th year, as an elderly roué with ugly features. 
Neither that nor the Berlin picture, which came from the Strozzi 
palace, was painted from life, but probably from one of the 
studies that Sandro made for the very similar portrait in the 
* Adoration,’ or for some other occasion. This pleasing like- 
ness is especially attractive on account of its firm draughtsman- 
ship and powerful colouring—a deep crimson robe lined with 
grey fur, over a barely visible dark green under-garment, set 
against a background of dark blue—all colours that are eminently 
in harmony with the brown face in its frame of black curls. 
A different, but equally admirable, likeness of Giuliano, that 
was discovered in Florence only a few years ago and sold to 
Mr. Otto H. Kahn of New York, appears to have been painted 
earlier, probably while Giuliano was still alive. This also 
Shows the young Medici in slightly more than profile, but facing 
towards the left, with dead black hair enhancing the pallor 
of the complexion, dressed in a plain black robe and set off by 
a blue-grey background. The same expression as in the Berlin 
picture, though somewhat softer and still more youthful, gives 
to this portrait its peculiar character. 

Before we go into the question whether the different female 
portraits that go under the name of Giuliano’s beloved Simonetta 
are rightly so called, we must first consider several of the artist’s 
large mythological paintings that have a certain association 
with this young woman. This is especially the case with the 

4 49 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


most famous of Sandro’s paintings, the ‘Spring’ in the Uffizi 
Gallery, a picture that, like the ° Birth of Venus,’ is usually 
taken to have been commissioned by Lorenzo il Magnifico. 
These two pictures, although no doubt painted for the Medici 
and already mentioned at the beginning of the sixteenth century 
as adorning the Villa Castello, cannot have been painted at the 
same time. ‘Spring,’ the earlier of the two and painted upon 
wood, is, both from its colouring and treatment, generally 
considered to be the older work and to have originated even 
before Sandro’s stay in Rome. I hold this view to be perfectly 
correct, for its form and draughtsmanship, the clear luminous 
colouring and the dressing of the hair, all point to this period. 
The theory that the picture was painted for Lorenzo the 
Magnificent has been disputed by Horne; and indeed the 
history of the picture which has been fully expounded by him 
as far as it can be traced, does not seem to indicate the Magnifi- 
cent as the patron, but rather his cousins. Like the. ° Birth 
of Venus,’’ it was in the Villa Castello in the time of Giovanni 
delle Bande Nere, who acquired it in 1503 with the villa from 
his father Giovanni. His son, Cosimo, the first grand duke, 
inherited the pictures with the villa, which had never been in 
the possession of the older line. It was not till 1477 that it 
was acquired by the two sons of Pierfrancesco de’ Medici, Piero’s 
cousin, who had recently died leaving an unusually large fortune. 
These sons bought the villa from a certain Niccolo della Stufa, 
in whose possession it had been since the middle of the century. 
The property of this younger Medici line was not touched during 
Savonarola’s revolution, whereas Lorenzo’s estate, in the in- 
ventory of which the pictures do not figure, was sold by public 
auction after the exile of his son Piero in 1494. Horne deduces 
from all this that ‘Spring’ was commissioned from Botticelli 
by the sons of Pierfrancesco for the decoration of the Villa 
Castello directly after its purchase. The weak point in this 
theory is that the two owners were at that time mere children; 
50 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


the elder, Lorenzo, was only fourteen in 1477, the younger, 
Giovanni, only ten. At this age one does not commission 
great pictures, least of all a picture of such deep and unusual 
meaning as ‘Spring,’ the motive of which could only have 
been conceived by a patron of riper years and one who had 
grown up in all the humanistic culture of the day. Lorenzo 
di Pierfrancesco was such a man; moreover, as we shall see 
later, he did become intimate with Botticelli, but hardly while 
still a boy. 

Although Horne’s investigations make the old theory that 
Lorenzo il Magnifico was the patron who commissioned ‘ Spring ’ 
as well as the ‘ Birth of Venus’ at least unlikely, they do not 
by any means indicate who the real patron was nor when the 
commission was given. But this question is only of secondary 
importance beside the fact that ° Spring ’ was in any case painted 
for the Medici, and that this commission is a further proof of 
the intimate footing on which the artist stood with that family. 
In the middle ’seventies Botticelli was already the favourite 
painter of the Medici and their artistic adviser in the pictorial 
adornment of their palaces, just as during the same period 
Verrocchio and Bertoldo were consulted on questions of plastic 
decoration. About the last named we know that he lived in 
one of Lorenzo’s villas, that he accompanied Lorenzo, then 
already seriously ill with gout, to the baths, that he discussed 
with him the subjects and execution of works of art already 
planned, and was enabled by him to set up his art school in 
the monastery of San Marco. Even these items about the 
personal relations of Bertoldo di Giovanni we only learn from the 
chance observations of a contemporary and from a short refer- 
ence in Lorenzo’s correspondence. Beyond this we know next 
to nothing about this artist, who belonged to Lorenzo’s im- 
mediate circle, therefore we cannot be surprised if the only 
information we get about Botticelli’s connection with Lorenzo 
and other members of the Medici family is from a few desultory 

51 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


remarks of Vasari’s, who did not write his biography till nearly 
a century later. All the richer and more varied are the proofs’ 
of intimacy afforded by Sandro’s paintings, not only on account 
of his many-sided commissions, but chiefly on account of the 
intellectual relationship and co-operation of the artist with his 
patrons and their humanistic advisers in the invention and 
execution of just such paintings. For they are indeed so rich 
in ideas, so full of imagination that their elucidation to-day 
still abundantly puts to the test the penetration of the learned, 
and at the same time they are the delight of eyes even only 
half educated in artistic perception. This is especially true of 
this painting that is sometimes called ‘ Spring’ and sometimes 
the ‘Realm of Venus,’ and is rightly the most celebrated of 
Sandro’s masterpieces. Its elucidation has been attempted 
by almost every one in his own way, but its meaning will 
certainly never be established quite beyond cavil. This 
does not in any way constitute a fault in the picture but 
rather an additional charm ; to every one it has a special mes- 
sage, every one thinks he discovers new allusions, new charms 
in it. 

The multitudinous questions as to the meaning of ° Spring ’ 
take us right into the whirl of ideas of Italian humanism as 
developed in Florence from the time of Cosimo, Pater Patrie, 
until it reached its culmination under Lorenzo and by means 
of his assistance. The growing interest in classic literature, 
especially in the old Greek authors, had led more and more 
to an enthusiasm for ancient culture and, as they fondly per- 
suaded themselves, to the revival of it in daily life. While the 
Middle Ages only suffered earthly existence to be considered as 
a preparation for the hereafter, and the reflection of heavenly 
beauty alone to have importance in the world, the Renaissance, 
on the other hand, adopted as its own the ancient view of the 
world that recognised man’s life on earth as an end in itself, 
and therefore permitted enjoyment of life and even made it 

52 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


a duty. No less a writer than Lorenzo himself gave the most 
vigorous expression to this newly awakened joy of life in the 
oft-quoted verse :— 


Quant’ é bella giovinezza 
Che si fugge tuttavia, 

Chi vuol essere lieto sia, 
Di doman’ non é certezza. 


In Italy the ancient world was never quite extinct. The 
sight of old ruins impressed it daily on the mind; its gods and 
heroes, since they could not be entirely eradicated from popular 
belief, were transformed into saints by the Christian Church. 
Even the philosophy of the Middle Ages had not been evolved 
quite independently of ancient philosophy, and scholasticism 
was founded on the teaching of Aristotle. But for the new 
age this teaching was too abstract, too theoretical, too inimical 
to life ; and when Plato’s doctrine became known, people received 
it with such enthusiasm that they even endeavoured to realise 
it in their own lives. To render this possible in an age that 
was still orthodox, great efforts were made to bring Plato’s 
philosophy into harmony with Christian doctrine. As an instance 
they could always cite the pious Dante, who had taken Virgil 
as his example and guide, and whose veneration for the Roman 
classic writers had been intensified by Petrarch and Boccaccio. 
In the fifteenth century, people, and old Cosimo’s Platonic 
Academy in particular, devoted themselves seriously to anti- 
quarian studies, they spread classical culture in Florence more 
and more, took the works of the old masters as models for their 
own creations, and succeeded so well that in Lorenzo’s time the 
pagan view of life began to penetrate the very flesh and blood 
of the educated. Life and all nature, not excepting man as 
God had made him, whose beauty now became apparent to 
the eye, were once more animated by the figures of antiquity, 
its gods and heroes lived again in the consciousness of the 

53 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Renaissance, attained expression in their scientific, poetic and 
artistic creations, and moulded their purport and form. The 
most determined effort was made to unite the Christian doctrine 
with ancient teaching as far as it was known and understood, 
to make of Plato a second John the Baptist—a forerunner of 
Christ. In Italy, and especially in Florence, life was wholly 
permeated by this extraordinary synthesis. Whilst the old 
medieval romances with which the minstrels used to entertain 
the people were now sneered at in coarse popular books, the 
people themselves were made familiar not only with the customary 
mystery plays from the story of Christ and the lives of the 
Saints, but also and above all with the old myths and their 
characters, their enthusiasm being aroused by public processions 
and shows at every festival, by minstrels and by representations 
on chests, coffers and boxes. 

His intimacy with the Medici and their circle had given 
Botticelli an opportunity to assimilate these views; his works 
in the ’seventies and early ’eighties reveal the most strenuous 
endeavour to give artistic form to these classical ideas and at 
the same time to bring them into harmony with his strict 
religious beliefs. While remaining an enthusiastic admirer and 
even, according to Vasari, a commentator of Dante, and whilst 
producing in ever greater perfection his Madonnas of wistful 
beauty worshipped by grave saints or by groups of lovely boy- 
angels, at the same time the artist produced a series of pictures 
in which, with the same conviction and simplicity, he represented 
pagan myths and legends in the figures of ancient gods and 
heroes, and in which, with equal enthusiasm and the same 
purity, he made the beauty of the naked human body his special 
study. Botticelli lacked the classical education to enable him 
to take his themes and information direct from Latin or Greek 
authors; translations, such as had already been published, 
and especially the poetic versions by the Florentine humanists 
of Lorenzo’s court such as Poliziano, Pulci, and Lorenzo him- 

o4 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


self, rendered the ancient classics accessible, and their contents 
familiar to him. The artist undoubtedly owes whole motives 
and much detail to their suggestion or precept, especially in 
commissioned work; but just as, in the midst of all these 
examples of ancient art, he allows himself to be less influenced 
by them than was any other contemporary artist, and even to 
borrow less from them, so we find that he quite innocently 
transformed the suggestions and advice of his learned patrons 
and friends into independent creations and evolved the most 
original scenes of imaginative witchery, and forms of the purest 
beauty and the greatest charm. It is Botticelli’s imaginative 
creations, such as the ° Birth of Venus,’ ‘Spring,’ and ‘ Calumny,’ 
that constitute the truest and most delightful fruits of the 
humanistic culture in the time of Lorenzo the Magnificent 
rather than the poetry of a Pulci or the love-songs of a Poliziano, 
which are only too often artificial and a patchwork of borrow- 
ings from the classics. 

Already in Botticelli’s earliest attested painting, the ‘ Forti- 
tudo,’ the figure portrayed by the artist was a classical one, 
but in the guise in which it was handed down by medieval 
scholasticism. In the great representation of Spring he depicts 
an entirely ancient theme, as directed by his patrons and advisers, 
but he permeates it with his own genius, with his own imagina- 
tion and artistic perception. The picture is indeed the anthem 
of the new faith, of the joy of life and earthly existence; it 
depicts the ‘Realm of Venus,’ the triumph of the love that 
Spring awakens in all nature and quickens to redoubled vigour 
in men’s hearts. It is composed of nine almost life-size figures 
in the foreground of an orange grove, but the significance of 
each figure and their relation to each other was not clear to us 
until the source whence Botticelli derived his theme was 
pointed out by Bayersdorfer, Venturi, and Warburg. It was 
borrowed from Poliziano’s ode for the great tournament in the 
spring of 1475, the ‘ Giostra’ in which Giuliano was declared 

55 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


the victor. In these verses the poet thus describes the ‘ Realm 
of Venus ’ :— 


Ma fatta Amor la sua bella vendetta 
Mossesi lieto pel negro aere a volo; 

E ginne al regno di sua madre in fretta 
Ov’ é de’ piccol suo fratei lo’ stuolo. 


Al regno ove Grazia si diletta 

Ove Belta di fiori al crin fra brolo, 
Ove tutto lascivo drieto a Flora 
Zefiro vola e la verde erba infiora. 


Poliziano goes on to depict the several figures, lingering 
especially over Spring, describing her joyous glance, her flower- 
embroidered dress, her fair hair and luxuriant wreath, all just 
as the artist carried them out in the picture. Even the orange 
erove with its golden fruit, within which Venus has gathered 
her subjects around her, is painted by the poet exactly as the 
artist puts it before us as the stage for his scene. Venus, arrayed 
in rich, handsome costume, stands in the middle of the picture 
in front of a dense myrtle bush; over her flies Cupid, blindfold, 
and in the act of shooting a flaming arrow; on the right of the 
goddess and well in the foreground, in fluttering robes of trans- 
parent gauze, the Graces sway daintily in a slow dance; near 
them, but on the extreme left, is Mercury, breaking up with 
his staff a little cloud that appears among the trees. On the 
extreme left of Venus a lovely maiden clad in a thin veil flees 
terrified from a wind-god who, storming through the trees, has 
already seized her by the shoulder. As sung by Poliziano this 
is Zephyr laying hands on Flora, but Botticelli apparently 
depicts him as the monster Boreas who ravished the nymph 
Oreithya—the icy North Wind breaking the earliest buds and 
blossoms, a spray of which falls from her mouth. Near this 
group and not troubling herself about them in the least walks 
Spring, * Primavera ’—according to some, Flora—in a fantastic 

56 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


robe richly adorned with flowers of many kinds and girdled by 
a garland of roses, her fair loosened hair is crowned by a small 
wreath, and she wears a wider one round her neck; she is looking 
out with a smile and, as she moves, strewing with her right 
hand the roses that she carries in her dress gathered up in her 
left. 

These several figures and groups are arranged by the painter 
in a masterly manner, together, but without any inner con- 
nection, entirely taken up with themselves and taking no heed 
of their neighbours. The artist’s chief concern was to group 
these figures skilfully, to exhibit them in all their plastic grace 
and beauty, and to bring out their colour effect against the vivid 
ereen meadow and the dark grove with its golden fruit. He 
leaves it to the beholder to discover for himself the inner relation 
of the figures, and to find out their mystic and allegorical con- 
nection. Now that we are aware that Poliziano’s ‘ Giostra’ 
is the source to which Botticelli owes his theme, and, thanks 
to Warburg’s thorough investigations, we know how Poliziano 
sought out the figures, the descriptions and often even the words 
from the most varied classics and patched them together in 
his Giostra, the meaning of the picture has become clearer, 
though the problems it offers us are still far from being solved. 
Before we go into these, let us try to realise the artistic impres- 
sion it produces. For quite apart from its profound significance 
and imaginative conception, for its artistic qualities as well, 
‘Spring’ is considered to be Botticelli’s masterpiece and 
the most charming panel preserved to us from the Quattro- 
cento. | 

The several figures are slender and buoyant, but powerfully 
built ; they are delicately realistic in their proportions and in 
the drawing of the extremities and articulation, and reveal very 
clearly the artist’s training under Verrocchio’s influence. The 
body of Mercury is similar in treatment to that of St. Sebastian 
in 1474: the magnificent female figures in their build and their 

57 


SANDRO BOTTICELL! 


expressive movement still show their relation to the ‘ Fortitudo’ 
of 1470, but they are bigger, stronger and still more graceful, 
richer, more varied and more strongly differentiated both in 
their characteristics and in the finish of every detail. The 
figure and type of Primavera with her large, almost harsh 
features, her cheerful gait, her joyous but inscrutable glance, 
her thick flaxen hair, her fantastic costume and adornment of 
flowers, are scarcely equalled in fifteenth-century art. But she 
is surpassed by the group of the three Graces, who, in their 
steps, in the interlacing of their hands, in the pose of their 
arms, in the attitude and movement of their bodies, whose 
divine nakedness is not concealed but rather accentuated by 
their fine, tastefully floating gauze raiment, express the rhythm 
of the dance with a grace hitherto unattained, and with a purity 
and solemnity of which there is scarcely another example in 
the whole range of Art. Wonderfully conceived and executed 
to perfection is the individuality of the three lovely maidens, 
with their contrasting types, their serious and yet delicately 
diversified expressions, the variety and taste in the dressing 
and adornment of their rich, golden hair. In the art of arrang- 
ing hair—the ‘ acconciatura ’—in which Botticelli competes with 
Leonardo, and was perhaps his example, the artist has here 
given his utmost; for each one of the six female figures he has 
sought and found a new fashion and one to suit the character, 
without any of the artificiality into which Leonardo so easily 
fell in his attempts to deduce a legitimate reason for everything. 
In this also he is in accord with the perception of his humanistic 
patrons, who thought that in the artistic and varied arrange- 
ment of hair they had discovered one of the special charms 
of the ancient works of art. 

In the middle, and standing a little back between this group 
of the Graces and the goddess of Spring, is Venus, identified 
as the goddess of Love by her companion Cupid; for her fully 
clothed figure, her almost shy bearing and her melancholy glance 

38 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


would not otherwise suggest this goddess. Even Botticelli 
himself has portrayed her in his ‘ Birth of Venus’ in radiant 
_ beauty and with all her sensuous charm. A particularly wistful, 
often melancholy tone is indeed peculiar to this artist’s figures, 
especially the female characters, but here, where the goddess 
is represented with her companions in her garden of love as the 
awakener of life upon Earth, this solemn conception must strike 
the beholder, and can only have been chosen for very special 
reasons. In strong contrast to the grave and serious character 
of these figures is the group in the right-hand corner of the 
picture—the wild wind-god seeking to carry off the nymph 
of spring from the circle of the goddess. Her body also, like 
those of the Graces, is in its nakedness rather accentuated than 
concealed by a thin gauze garment, but it is fuller, more volup- 
tuous, her features are more sensual, so that she must have 
specially excited the monster’s passion. As if to protect the 
goddess and her companions in their mood of consecration 
from a glimpse of this wild scene, the goddess of spring steps 
cheerfully and unconcernedly between. Another figure in the 
composition, and the only male one, who stands turned away 
on the extreme left, is, by his winged sandals and his staff, clearly 
identifiable as Mercury. By means of a tiny cloud that appears 
above him in the foliage and that is being broken up by the 
god with his staff, is indicated that he has joined the goddess 
to keep every cloud, every sadness from her realm. The 
assault of the rough wind-god, about which he is not in the least 
concerned, would certainly have furnished him with a greater 
cause for interference, or did the artist mean to express by 
Mercury’s action that it is the cloud of unwarranted intrusion 
into the hallowed province of the goddess that he will prevent ? 
Mercury’s appearance as the escort of Venus and the leader 
of the Graces is traditional, and was made use of by Poliziano 
in his poem from a few indirect references in the ancient 
classics. | 
39 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


The appearance of the painting, which is well preserved 
even to the old dull coat of varnish, differs from that of most 
of Sandro’s pictures in that the true colours are here subordinated. 
The artist sought by this means to give effect to his figures 
by bringing out the full beauty of their bodies, which, with the 
exception of Venus and Spring, are practically naked; this 
effect he increased by the dark green background, bestrewed 
with flowers and fruits. Where positive colour appears over a 
somewhat larger area, as in Mercury’s short red garb on the 
left, in the pale blue adornment of the wind-god on the right, 
and the blue dress and red cloak of Venus in the middle, even 
then the colour is considerably toned down by golden ornaments 
and transparent washes. It is truly astonishing to note the 
love and pleasure with which the artist—always a great amateur 
of plants and trees—sows the lawn all over with hundreds of 
flowers of the most varied kinds and covers the trees with 
blossom and golden oranges, and the care and faithfulness 
with which he finished them. He had acquired this delight 
from his teacher, Fra Filippo, as we see from his paintings and 
especially from the Adoration of the Child with Saint Bernard, 
in the Berlin Gallery. Behind Venus the artist has placed 
a thick myrtle bush, whose delicate sprays stand out clearly 
against the pale-blue sky, just as Leonardo about the same © 
time used a thick juniper hedge as the background of his portrait 
of Ginevra de’ Benci. 

The deeper we penetrate into the artistic qualities of the 
picture, always finding more beauties therein, the keener grows 
our need also to fathom the significance of the scene, the coher- 
ence of the strange composition, and the occasion of its origin. 
To the last question we can give a definite reply, and this also 
provides the clue by which we get closer to the meaning of the 
picture. We have seen that the ‘° Giostra,’ Poliziano’s ode to 
the glory of Giuliano de’ Medici and his friend Simonetta, whom 
he had chosen for the tournament as the lady of his heart, 

60 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


was also the source of Botticelli’s theme. Poliziano began his 
great poem soon after the 1475 tournament and left it unfinished 
after a few years, when the foul murder in the cathedral at 
Florence brought Giuliano’s life to a sudden end. Simonetta 
had already died before him, on April 26, 1476, scarcely a year 
after the tournament, of consumption, when only twenty-three 
years old. This, however, did not interrupt the continuation 
of the poem; rather the tragic death gave a new impetus to this 
ideal romance in which the medieval love-service still survived. 
This lady of Giuliano’s heart, the honoured wife of Marco 
Vespucci, whom she, a daughter of the Genoese Gaspare Cattaneo, 
had married at the age of fifteen, was henceforth celebrated 
with redoubled fervour by Giuliano and the court poets, now 
as * Venus,’ now as the ‘ Nymph Simonetta.’ After Giuliano’s 
death Lorenzo thought he could do his brother no higher honour 
than to let the long-deceased Simonetta live on in his poems 
as the lady of his own heart. And just as, after his brother’s 
tragic end, he had a series of likenesses painted by Botticelli 
and his school, three of which are still known, so he also caused 
portraits of Giuliano’s beloved to be made for him and for her 
relatives, and most of these were commissioned from Botticelli. 

Vasari mentions such a portrait in the Guardaroba of Duke 
Cosimo ; to-day no less than five are known. That these are 
all more or less fantastic corresponds exactly with the guise 
in which this Beatrice of the young Medici was celebrated in 
those poems by Lorenzo and his poet friends. The right of 
these different fancy portraits to the name of Simonetta has lately 
been keenly challenged, even though this title has, in most 
cases, been handed down from olden times; Horne in particular 
relegates them to the realm of fable and does not even allow them 
to count as Botticelli’s works. He is wrong, and the Simonetta 
portrait by Sandro’s younger contemporary, Piero di Cosimo, 
that is brought into the field as evidence against these likenesses 
of women under the name of Simonetta which are ascribed 

61 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


to Botticelli, affords the surest proof that these also were meant 
to represent Simonetta. That Piero’s picture, which Vasari 
(as Gustavo Frizzoni first pointed out) unmistakably describes 
and states to be Piero’s work, represents the wife of Marco 
Vespucci, is proved by the large inscription under the 
picture: SIMONETTA IANVENSIS veEsPucciA. It is true that 
Herbert Horne, who would like to explain Simonetta and all 
connection of hers with the Art of the age entirely away, declares 
this inscription to have been affixed later, under the influence of 
Vasari’s description. But every writing expert will agree that these 
beautiful capital letters all bear the character of middle-Italian 
writing of the fifteenth century. Moreover, an examination 
of the actual painting confirms the statement that the inscrip- 
tion has been under the portrait from the beginning, and this 
is also evident from the composition. Hence there is not the 
slightest doubt that it was intended to represent Simonetta 
Vespucci. But as she passed away when the artist Piero was 
only fourteen years old, he cannot have painted her from 
life, and since Piero remained as pupil and partner with his 
teacher, Cosimo Rosselli, until they returned from Rome to- 
gether in 1483, this likeness must have originated at a later 
date, that is, seven years after Simonetta’s death at the 
earliest. 

This is evidence of the cult of this Florentine ideal beauty 
that was practised year after year by her grand admirers, but 
at the same time it is also proof that the person portrayed is 
the same as in Botticelli’s so-called Simonetta portraits. An 
examination of the illustrations, in which we compare the 
copy of Piero’s picture with those by Botticelli himself or from 
his studio, will show that it is an error to deny their agree- 
ment, especially when we take into consideration that neither 
artist painted from life, and that both made up their portraits 
in fantastic fashion and gave them allegorical settings. Accord- 
ing to Vasari, Piero’s picture was entitled * Ideal Portrait of 

62 


met rOLOGICAL SCENES 


Cleopatra,’ the uncovered bosom and the snake coiling itself 
round the gold necklace being a proof of this. As, however, 
the woman herself appears to know nothing about the snake’s 
presence, the Cleopatra subject would be quite insufficiently 
characterised. The snake, stretching out its tongue towards 
the breast of the young beauty, is much more likely to indicate 
the wasting ‘disease, consumption, of which Simonetta died ; 
threatening misfortune is also indicated by the black cloud that 
towers up behind her head. 

The various likenesses of the same young lady by Botticelli 
are also taken in profile, therefore they were presumably not 
painted from life but after some medallion or drawing. They 
exhibit the same features and colouring, the high forehead 
with hair growing far back, the very unclassic nose with its 
weak bridge and slightly retroussé tip, the firmly closed little 
mouth, the determined chin and the wealth of glorious hair. 
The exceedingly artistic hairdressing is common to both Botti- 
celli’s and Piero’s portraits. Piero tastefully arranged the long 
thick plaits, braided with strings of pearls and fastened with 
pearl pins, at the back of the head. Botticelli is no less artistic 
in his arrangement, but he is still more fanciful, and adopts a 
different dressing in each of his four known pictures. In most 
cases one broad tress, or the principal plait, hangs down the back, 
on the brow are short, slightly wavy locks, a string of large 
pearls lies across the crown, and strands of small pearls, coloured 
ribbons and little kerchiefs are wound in and out of the hair. 
In the Frankfort picture two broad principal plaits, threaded 
with pearls, are brought forward and pinned together on the 
breast. In the picture in the Cook collection at Richmond 
which, like the Frankfort one, was executed in Sandro’s studio, 
a broad pearl-embroidered scarf is wound in the hair and lies 
over a small pink cap, being then knotted in front on the breast., 
The two pictures done by his own hand, one in the Berlin 
Gallery and the other in the possession of the Kappel family 

63 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


in Berlin, are both in profile and seen, according to Sandro’s 
custom, against a window. They have a more marked portrait 
character, but the arrangement of the too-luxuriant golden hair 
is here also quite as complicated and fanciful and richly threaded 
with strings of pearls. 

I have already mentioned that these pictures have been 
doubted in several quarters, not only as likenesses of Simonetta, 
but also as works of Botticelli, and even energetically challenged, 
especially by Horne. It is generally allowed that they belong 
to the style or school of the master, and the mythical * Amico 
di Sandro ’ is named as the painter of first one and then another. 
We know that under this name Bernhard Berenson lumped 
together a whole series of genuine and particularly beautiful 
works by Sandro, and previously some pictures by Filippino, 
besides productions from their school, copies, and even works 
by very different painters. How all these real or pretended 
artists came by commissions for likenesses of Simonetta, further 
how it can be explained that the same type should recur in 
Sandro’s most renowned pictures, and that in those he shows 
the same fantastic disposition, the same colouring and treat- 
ment—all this does not trouble these critics. It is true that 
the completion of pictures such as the likeness in profile before 
a landscape background, in the Cook collection, and the similar 
profile against a black ground in the Staidel Museum in Frank- 
fort, was largely left to the hands of pupils. The latter picture, 
that betrays at once by the well-known Medici emblem at the 
_ neck that it was painted to the order of a Medici, shows by the 
colossal dimensions of the figure that it was intended for decora- 
tive purposes. But the portrait in the Berlin Gallery and that 
of the Kappel collection in Berlin (formerly in the possession 
of Alfred Seymour in London), which are still more attractive 
on account of the richer and extraordinarily vivid colours, both 
in perfect preservation, are quite characteristic works from 
Sandro’s own hand. Not only the colouring and composition, 

64 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


but also the arrangement of the hair and the lightening of its 
effect with gold, are peculiar to Sandro and to him only. Even 
the profile, allowing a glimpse of the side of the face turned 
away from the beholder, as well as the sharp outlines of the 
drawing, and the slightly Mongolian slant of the eyes, are found 
repeatedly in paintings known to be this artist’s. The brilliant 
crimson, the clear rich colours, the costume, and particularly 
the adornment of the hair, point to the period before Sandro’s 
sojourn in Rome, though probably not much earlier than 1480, 
since here Verrocchio’s influence, which is still clearly discernible 
in the ‘ Adoration’ in the Uffizi and in ‘ Spring,’ is now barely 
noticeable. 

We now know Giuliano’s features and also Simonetta’s 
from a whole series of likenesses, we know that for Botticelli’s 
* Spring ’ the motive and even the details, such as the fluttering, 
transparent raiment, and the fantastically dressed yellow-gold 
hair flying in the wind, were borrowed from the * Giostra ? poem 
written in honour of the two lovers; does not the question 
naturally follow whether the hero and heroine of the poem are 
not also represented in the picture? Might we not, above 
all, expect to find Simonetta in it? And, if the reply is in the 
affirmative, in which figure are we to recognise her—in the Venus, 
in the goddess of spring, or in the Flora? Unless indeed she 
appears in all three figures. Each of these hypotheses has had 
its champions, and each has been just as decidedly rejected by 
other investigators. Once more, the only one who denies the 
existence of any connection and indeed of any portrait in the 
picture is Herbert Horne. At the same time he forgets that 
in the Quattrocento the freedom of the modern painter in the 
choice of his subjects was still unknown, and that artists never 
painted fancy portraits without a special commission, a special 
purpose and connection. Horne’s view argues a complete 
misinterpretation of Botticelli’s genius, his talent for, and joy 


in discovering and following up allusions; his special gift 
5 65 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


in this direction and his preference for it make it incumbent 
on us to examine the picture more closely with this idea in 
mind. The female figures in ‘ Spring’ are so varied, so different 
in type, more so than in any other of the artist’s paintings, 
but none of them has real portrait-like features, they are all 
more or less variations of expression. Nevertheless, one parti- 
cular trait is common to all these figures, on every face rests 
a solemn, even melancholy shadow, the more striking since the 
scene here represented is indeed the Realm of Venus, the awaken- 
ing of love with the dawn of spring. The wistful, often almost 
melancholy expression peculiar to this artist’s figures cannot 
be brought forward as the reason in this case, for in the ° Birth 
of Venus,’ in ‘ Judith,’ and in the ‘° Fortezza’ this trait is lack- 
ing, or rather it is transformed into a solemn gladness, and in 
the drawings for the last cantos of Dante’s Purgatorio the 
Virtues therein represented as dancing show an almost Bacchantic 
unrestraint ; therefore this melancholy mood would be still 
more out of place in the Realm of Venus without some special 
occasion for it. We may with all probability assume that this 
occasion was afforded by the tragic death of Simonetta, the 
beloved of Giuliano who was honoured as the goddess of Love 
in the festival ode just begun by Poliziano. She died at the 
end of April, 1474, just as spring, in all its splendour, began in 
Italy. Botticelli, who was to paint the Realm of Venus accord- 
ing to this poem, indicated the sad event in his picture by 
depicting the festival of spring as a solemn festival of mourn- 
ing. For that reason Venus is shown richly clad, and her features, 
which resemble Simonetta’s, are full of melancholy; hence 
also the grave, mournful trait in the movement and expression 
of every figure, even at this joyous festival of newly awakened 
life and love of which Poliziano sings in his poem to spring :— 


Ben venga Primavera 
Che vuol l’uomo s’inamori. 


66 





MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


In the Venus, Simonetta, the beloved, is also glorified, as sur- 
viving in Elysium united with the goddess of Love. Such an 
explanation of Botticelli’s painting, which was in poetic mean- 
ing far superior to Poliziano’s poem, is rendered more probable 
by several other pictures painted during the next few years 
for the Medici, in which he also transformed ancient myths in 
honour of Simonetta. To this category belongs the horizontal 
panel of Mars and Venus, now in the National Gallery, which 
appears from its shape to have been intended for the decoration 
of furniture, and probably adorned the head-piece or foot- 
board of a state bed. This scene again is peculiar, quite different 
to the interpretation put by all other artists upon this very 
popular theme. Mars, a strong, beautiful youth, naked except 
for a cloth lying over his lap, leans against his corselet deeply 
sunk in slumber, whilst opposite to him lies Venus, clad in a 
loose white garment adorned with a golden border. She re- 
clines on her right arm, supported by a gold-embroidered cushion, 
and turns her gaze watchfully upon her sleeping beloved. The 
wealth of golden hair, two braids of which are clasped together 
on the breast by a pearl brooch, whilst loose curls cluster round 
the temples and one thick tress hangs unconfined down the back, 
is arranged in a fanciful way similar to that in the likeness of 
Simonetta Vespucci, whose features the goddess unmistakably 
has. Indeed, in this picture Simonetta is particularly faith- 
fully and attractively portrayed. Around this Olympian pair 
four baby satyrs are playing; they have taken possession of 
the war-god’s weapons and are romping about with them in 
wild play. One naughty little fellow with a delightfully roguish 
expression has slipped into the coat of mail, another has put 
on the god’s helmet and is trying with the help of a third to lift 
the shaft of the heavy spear, and in their clumsiness running 
it against a tree stump out of which startled hornets have been 
roused ; a fourth has seized a conch and is blowing it right 
into the god’s ear. Directly behind this group the scene is 
67 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


closed in by a thick hedge of myrtle with one little opening 
in the middle. 

This is no representation of a scene from the love story 
of Mars and Venus as handed down to us in ancient myths. 
The artist has borrowed the classic figures of gods to serve his 
own imaginary themes; he pours new wine into old bottles 
and thus creates a delightful idyll full of true humanistic feel- 
ing. The wild boy-satyrs and the tilting-lance give us the key 
to the enigmatic scene. The warrior, tired out by hard fight- 
ing in the lists, has divested himself of his armour and fallen 
into a deep sleep. Restless dreams hover around him, to which 
the painter has given expression in the little satyrs. They, 
rather than Cupids, were chosen as the escort of Venus to indicate 
that the game of love is only a deceptive dream. They call 
back to his memory the joust from which he emerged victorious, 
and the trumpet’s blast conjures up before him the lovely 
Simonetta whom he had elected as the lady of his heart in 
the tournament, and whose love helped him to victory. The 
medieval love-game provided the motive for which Mars and 
Venus, the ancient divinities of love and strength, supplied the 
characters, in accordance with the rules of the Medici Round 
Table; but from it all the artist evolved an absolutely new 
and enchanting imaginary picture. : 

This London painting is unusually well preserved, and, in 
spite of its decorative purpose, it is exceptionally perfect in 
drawing and execution. The body of Mars exhibits the same 
simplicity of treatment of the human form on a large scale as the 
‘St. Sebastian ’ in the Berlin Museum, though the foreshorten- 
ing is sharper, especially in the finely drawn head. On the 
other hand, in the Venus, whose head and hands are also parti- 
cularly well drawn, the artist has endeavoured to finish the 
splendid, fashionable costume with its rich folds following the lines 
of the fabric and the pose, as cleanly and tastefully as possible. 
The cream-coloured dress of the goddess and the pale body of 

68 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


the god with the small white cloth over it stand out clearly 
and delicately against the red cloak on which he lies and the dark 
green myrtle grove, and this heightens the cheerful, decorative 
impression produced by this priceless furniture panel which has 
come down to us from Renaissance times. A certain resemblance 
in the anatomy of the sleeper, the delicate foreshortening, the 
splendidly drawn extremities with their strongly marked supple 
joints, seem to me to indicate that the picture originated at a 
time when Verrocchio’s influence on the artist was still notice- 
able, that is to say, very soon after the memorable tournament, 
so that the delicately individualised features of the Venus may 
perhaps be traced to a study of Simonetta’s head painted from 
life. 

A third picture of Botticelli’s, the ‘ Birth of Venus,’ also 
painted for the Medici and already mentioned at the beginning 
of the sixteenth century as being with ‘Spring’ in the Villa 
_ Castello, is almost as well known and celebrated as the ‘ Spring,’ 
together with which it has lately been hung in the Botticelli 
room in the Uffizi. On account of its size and of its similarity 
of origin and mythological meaning, the picture has been taken 
for a pendant to ‘Spring.’ But the fact that it is painted on 
linen, an unusual proceeding, and that it differs noticeably 
in detail and proportions, gives it another character and leads 
us to another conclusion. Both pictures were undoubtedly 
intended for decorative purposes, most likely for the Villa 
Castello, but they must have been utilised in different ways. 
Unfortunately there remains hardly any indication of the 
purpose and method of setting up of these large decorative 
pictures of the Renaissance, whereas for the small horizontal 
panels we can prove that they were used as decoration for 
furniture, pictures on caskets, sides for state beds, or wall 
panelling. This much only we may accept as certain, that 
* Spring,’ a painting on wood, was introduced into mural panel- 
ling, whereas the ‘ Birth of Venus,’ a decorative painting, was 

69 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


hung on the wall like tapestry. Judging by their conception 
and the scenes they represent, they must be very closely related, 
nor can their dates be very far apart. 

Here also Sandro borrowed his motive from ancient poetry 
as transmitted to him in Poliziano’s version. The bard of the 
Medici hymns the birth of the goddess of Love in his ‘ Giostra,’ 
in which he repeats the Homeric song almost exactly. Pro- 
pelled by soft zephyrs, a maiden of almost unearthly beauty 
comes gliding over the sea; holding her hair together with her | 
right hand and with her left covering her delicate breast, she 
steps from a shell on to the beach that covers itself with fragrant 
flowers beneath her footsteps. Here the three Hours receive 
her and wrap her in a pearl-embroidered cloak. The artist 
follows this description of the poet’s, but gives only its general 
meaning and without keeping to it in detail. He only allows 
one Hour to await the goddess on the shore, and thus throws 
into more striking relief the chief figure, which alone is shown 
in divine nakedness, with her wealth of golden hair fluttering 
around her, and framed on her left hand by the young Grace 
in a rich flowered robe, and on the right by the pair of wind- 
gods that float near her, and, pressing closely together, have 
brought her over the sea. In the figure of the goddess Sandro 
has, in form and attitude, followed almost exactly the ancient 
statue of Venus, of which the Roman copy is the most familiar 
to us under the name of the Medici Venus, although other copies 
were already known in Botticelli’s time. From any imitation 
of the statue the artist keeps as far as he does from an intentional 
illustration of the poem. Sculptor and poet only gave him the 
motive, from which he formed an entirely original pictorial 
composition. 

The Venus of this composition corresponds in essentials 
almost exactly to a painting in the Berlin Gallery that contains 
no other figures; it is held to be a workshop reproduction, 
but it appears to me rather a study of the ancient statue made 

70 


MYTHOLOGICAL SCENES 


at the same time by Sandro and finished with the help of a model 
for the arrangement of the too-luxuriant hair. Against the 
black ground the light figure appears like a delicate picture in 
enamel, and can be compared to Cranach’s figures of Venus 
and of Lucretia, which are similarly posed before a black back- 
ground; this gives a slightly hard, firm, statuesque effect, whereas 
in the Florentine picture she is delicately surrounded by clear 
light. Here her slight forward movement shows that she is 
about to step ashore, whilst in the Berlin picture she is stand- 
ing firmly on the stone floor. Except for this slightly altered 
pose, the figure is almost exactly the same, but the arrange- 
ment of the hair is essentially different. In the composition 
it is blown quite to the left of the goddess by the breath of the 
wind-gods; in the Berlin study it hangs freely down on both 
sides while two short daintily braided tresses fall over her 
shoulders towards the front. This arrangement of the hair 
is almost the same as in the other likeness of Simonetta Vespucci ; 
moreover, the face shows the features of Giuliano’s beloved 
both here and in the large picture in Florence. Hence the 
importance of seeking also in the ‘ Birth of Venus’ some con- 
nection with this feminine personality who for years so deeply 
affected the Medici brothers. The theory that nothing but 
Sandro’s usual individual ideal of womanhood was portrayed 
therein has already, and quite rightly, been attacked by Warburg 
and Venturi. Simonetta’s features, here and in other similar 
works of Sandro’s, have no doubt been idealised, but they are 
still clearly recognisable as hers. These features, since they 
occupied his mind so much, were no doubt chosen by the artist 
also for his ideal female figures, especially the Madonnas. And 
it looks very much as if, as in the ‘ Spring,’ the lady of Giuliano’s 
heart was also to be thought of in connection with the arrival 
of the goddess of Love on Italian soil; the birth of Venus, her 
rising out of the sea, the Italian transferred to his own home 
coast, and into the loveliest harbour of the Riviera, which is 
71 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


to-day still called,Porto Venere. But it was also at Porto Venere, 
in her parental villa, that Simonetta, the noble lady of the 
Genoese family of Cattaneo, first saw the light. Her arrival 
in Florence was celebrated as the entry of the goddess of Love 
and as the dawn of Spring. Such allusions, and even such 


play upon words, were quite in keeping with the taste of 
the age. 


72 


CHAPTER V 


BOTTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER IN FLORENCE AND ROME 


and the less restful treatment of the folds, the ‘ Birth 

of Venus ’ must have been painted a few years later than 
the * Spring,’ but very probably before Sandro was summoned 
to Rome in the year 1481. A little earlier, that is to say about 
the same time as the ‘Birth of Venus,’ he painted a picture 
of quite a different kind, which shows him once again in associa- 
tion with the Vespucci family, but this time working under 
their direct instructions. The St. Augustine in the Ognissanti 
Church at Florence, executed as a pendant to the St. Jerome 
of Ghirlandajo, which is dated 1480, is the earliest fresco from 
the artist’s hands which is still extant. It ushers in the 
multifarious activity of Sandro in fresco painting, of which he 
already reveals in this work a thorough and truly monumental 
grasp. 

The artist’s connection with the Vespucci was of much older 
standing than the commissions which he received from the 
Medici for the glorification of Marco Vespucci’s wife; for the 
artist had been born and brought up, and very probably lived 
till his death, in a house quite near the houses of the Vespucci 
and included in the parish of their church, the Ognissanti. It 
is possible, too, that one or other of Sandro’s portraits of Simon- 
etta had been painted for the Vespucci family. The Vespucci 
had begun by entrusting the interior decoration of their church 
to the young Domenico Ghirlandajo. Of the frescoes which 

73 


i by the softer outlines, the brighter colouring 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


he was commissioned to paint, two were restored to view only 
some twenty or thirty years ago; they depict the mourning 
for Christ and a Madonna with a cloak, together with the members 
of the Vespucci family, and are unfortunately ill preserved. 
They were painted a few years before Ghirlandajo’s fresco 
of St. Jerome, which bears the date 1480. This picture, together 
with the St. Augustine which, according to the biographers of 
the older artists, Botticelli painted in competition with it, 
originally adorned the rood-screen of the church. When the 
old rood-screen was demolished, both pictures were transferred 
to the side wall of the church. A certain hardness in the draw- 
ing and colouring is commonly attributed to this being the 
artist’s first experiment in the technique of fresco painting ; 
but quite apart from the fact that Sandro, as a pupil of Fra 
Filippo, who was then completing his great frescoes in the 
Cathedral at Prato, and no doubt entrusted subordinate portions 
of the work to his pupils, must have had practice in painting 
frescoes, the coldness of the St. Augustine fresco is better 
accounted for by damage sustained in consequence of being 
pulled down and re-erected. Only quite recently have we 
learnt how to take down frescoes without risk of harm. 

The St. Augustine in the Ognissanti is one of Botticelli’s 
most important works; in grandeur of conception, in energy 
of expression and emotion, as in skill of arrangement in a con- 
fined space, it is his unsurpassed masterpiece. The artist has 
created no other male figure equally striking in characterisa- 
tion, equally harmonious in its expression of enthusiasm and 
strong emotion. Its pendant, Ghirlandajo’s St. Jerome, a 
genre picture rivalled in charm by few works of the Quattro- 
cento, is enough to demonstrate how far Sandro surpassed 
him in imagination and artistic originality. 

It was only natural that such achievements should bring 
Botticelli to the notice of Pope Sixtus IV, when the latter was 
making the arrangements for the grand decoration of the private 

TA 


Por triCELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


chapel in the Vatican which bears his name. Not till the end 
of 1480 had the Pope raised the ban which he had laid upon 
Florence as penance for its severe punishment of the ecclesiastical 
murderers of Giuliano de’ Medici and of those who had instigated 
them. After a long struggle Lorenzo had contrived to appease 
the Pope, and to win him over by the prospect of political 
gains. And presumably it was Lorenzo who induced the Pope 
to assign to the Florentine artists, in company with the painters 
from less remote Umbria, a prominent part in the decoration 
of the chapel. Indeed, the lion’s share of the work was allotted 
to the Florentines; the structure of the chapel was erected by 
the Florentine architect Giovanni de’ Dolci, the marble rood- 
screen was the work of the Florentine Mino da Fiesole and his 
assistants, the Florentines Botticelli, Ghirlandajo and Cosimo 
Rosselli were, in conjunction with the Umbrian masters Perugino, 
Signorelli and Pinturicchio, called upon to decorate the walls 
with frescoes. If we may trust Vasari and attach importance 
to the fact that Botticelli’s name is the first in the contract, 
it appears that Sandro occupied a position of authority among 
these artists. The contract was entered into on October 27, 
1481, the chapel was ceremonially opened by the Pope, so that 
by this date the frescoes must have been completed. But in 
the autumn of 1482 Botticelli had already, in conjunction with 
Ghirlandajo, received a commission from the Signoria of Florence 
to decorate certain rooms in the Palazzo Vecchio; and Horne 
is therefore probably correct in assuming that Sandro started 
work in the Sixtine Chapel as early as the spring of 1481, for 
in the space of barely a year he could not possibly have executed 
the three great frescoes, as well as the twenty-four papal portraits 
between the windows, which he designed at least in part. 
These frescoes in the Sixtine Chapel are by far the most 
extensive work of Botticelli’s still extant, and probably the 
most extensive he ever carried out. Apart from the imaginary 
portraits of the martyred popes, broadly painted on a gigantic 
75 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


scale and intended to enrich the upper part of the walls, the 
artist has painted three mural frescoes containing a large number 
of life-size figures. It has therefore been assumed that various 
pupils and friends helped him in this work, and Filippino Lippi 
and Fra Diamante have been named in this connection. Horne 
rejects this hypothesis on convincing grounds, inasmuch as both 
these artists were at the time at work away from Rome. We 
also possess a documentary record in which it is expressly stated 
that Filippino took no part in the painting of these frescoes. 
No part of them, moreover, can be identified as the handiwork 
of either Filippino or Diamante. But on the other hand a 
divergence in the treatment of certain portions, notably in the 
backgrounds, does show that the Master here employed an assist- 
ant. The strong emphasis laid upon the landscape and its 
detailed execution differ too much from Botticelli’s usual 
decorative and merely suggestive treatment of natural scenery, 
the detailed finish, including even the yards, of the ship in 
the landscape in the ‘Punishment of the Company of Korah,’ 
the firm drawing of the buildings in the background of the 
fresco, and other similar features, indicate the assistance of a 
pupil in such portions. Yet even here we can clearly recognise 
the master’s design; we have already seen the prototype of 
these Gothic buildings in the imaginary towns and the slender 
pillars and columns with their capitals in imitation of classical 
architecture in his authentic pictures of the ’seventies. 

The execution of the frescoes on the walls of the Sixtine 
Chapel was apportioned among the artists almost equally ; their 
distribution and arrangement, as well as the subject matter, 
were minutely prescribed by the Pope and his councillors, but 
in the artistic execution of the work they manifestly had a 
substantially free hand. The subjects chosen were outstanding 
events in the life of Christ which had special reference to the 
Church and its Head, and these were, in accordance with the 
tradition handed down from early Christian times, to be con- 

76 . 


Sete rorlll AS FRESCO PAINTER 


trasted with scenes from the Old Testament as predictions of 
Christ and his Mission. To Botticelli were allotted the ‘ Punish- 
ment of the Company of Korah,’ and, as companion subjects, 
the call of Moses to his mission, and Christ’s preparation for the 
Messiahship. Like the other frescoes, each of Sandro’s had to 
represent not a single incident, but a series of events, the most 
important being placed in the centre of the foreground, whilst 
the others received subordinate treatment in the background 
or at the sides. The Quattrocento took the greatest delight in 
multiplicity of incidents in one and the same picture, so far as 
it was possible to include them; unity of subject is not insisted 
upon till the golden age of the Renaissance, when Leonardo and 
Michelangelo raised it to a universal artistic canon. The pictures 
nevertheless make a first impression of unity of composition ; 
an effect which the various masters secure by virtually the 
same means: by emphasising the principal subject, and by 
setting all the scenes against a common background of landscape 
and of great buildings which close in the whole composition. 
In this respect there is no difference between Botticelli and his 
fellow workers in the Chapel. 

In various quarters, notably by Herbert Horne, these frescoes 
have been declared by far the most important of Sandro’s 
works, and have been extolled accordingly. Quite apart from 
the lack of unity of composition, the defect already mentioned 
as being general in the fifteenth century, this seems to me an 
exaggeration of their artistic value, though I have not the 
slightest wish to minimise their importance, which is due to 
their great extent, the development of Sandro’s power of dramatic 
creation and narrative skill, the number of effective portraits, 
and many charming details. The artist has far less scope here 
than in his pictures of the Madonna and his mythological and 
allegorical representations for his most conspicuous artistic 
qualities—unique imagination, great sense of beauty, taste and 
grace, and not least, his deep feeling and peculiar emotion. The 

77 


SANDRO BOTTICELLSA 


haste, too, with which these large compositions had to be com- 
pleted, and the technique of fresco painting were not propitious 
to the precision with which he loved to execute his paintings, 
and the richness with which he loved to embellish them. But 
it is true, though Horne lays far too much stress on it, that 
these frescoes afford valuable help in many respects for the 
criticism of the artist’s other works, particularly those not 
authenticated by documentary records or by tradition. 

These details of these three frescoes are also of manifold 
interest. Following Steinmann, who was the first to identify 
correctly the principal subjects of two of them, the fresco with 
representations of the Temptation of Christ is regarded as the 
one which the artist tackled first. The curious sacrifice which 
is being offered up in the foreground of the fresco, thus thrust- 
ing the four scenes from Christ’s period of preparation quite 
into the background, has—as Steinmann has acutely shown— 
nothing to do with the New Testament, but is taken from the 
Book of Leviticus, and expressly designed to glorify Pope 
Sixtus IV himself. For the subject is none other than the 
cleansing of the leper according to the complicated Mosaic 
ordinances. The choice of this remarkable theme was directly 
due to Sixtus, who, from the point of view both of sanitation 
and of art, rightly regarded the great leper hospital he had 
built together with the Church of the Santo Spirito, as one of 
his greatest services to Rome. And it was doubtless also on 
instructions of the Pope that this fresco designed to exalt him 
was placed in the position it actually occupied, namely opposite 
his throne in the chapel. In order to bring home to every 
beholder the bearing of this representation on the charitable 
works of the Pope, we see in the Temple of Jerusalem, behind 
the altar on which the sacrifice is being prepared, an accurate 
reproduction of the west front of Santo Spirito. This edifice, 


which was just being completed when the decoration of the | 


Sixtine Chapel began, became in its sanitary arrangement, and 
78 


og 2 a 


BOTTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


to some extent even in its facade (as the free imitation in 
the Scuola di San Marco hospital in Venice shows) a model 
for leper hospitals throughout Italy. This foundation was 
suggested to Sixtus while he was General of the Order of St. 
Francis, whose spiritual work began with the care of lepers, 
and who imposed this on the Order which he founded as one 
of its principal duties. 

In the crowd surrounding the altar the artist has, with 
great skill, combined the various phases of the sacrificial clean- 
sing into a clear picture which possesses artistic unity. In front 
of the altar on which the sacrifice is burning, Aaron, the High 
Priest, is receiving from a youth the golden dish with the blood 
of the dove for the purification ; from the right a young woman 
is bringing the wood for the altar, towards which the leper is 
being led by friends, while on the left of the altar a woman 
hastily approaches with the pair of doves. In the woman with 
the wood we easily recognise one of the Graces in the ‘ Spring,’ 
while the woman with the doves, which she is carrying in a basket 
on her head, is an almost faithful replica of the maidservant 
in the small picture of Judith in the Uffizi. The grouping of 
the worshippers on both sides of the altar betrays a reminiscence 
of the arrangement of the Kings’ retinue in the Adoration in 
the Uffizi. The real subject matter of the picture is confined 
to four small groups in the background: on the left Christ 
taking leave of the angels, above in the olive grove the Tempter 
approaching our Lord in the cowl of a Franciscan, on the roof 
of the Temple Satan calling upon Christ to cast himself down, 
on the rocky height to the right the Tempter, repulsed by our 
Lord, is throwing himself over the precipice, while the angels 
prepare a banquet for Christ. The three young angels who 
here, and in the representation of the leave-taking, crowd 
anxiously round the Lord are the same splendid youthful figures 
who surround the Madonna in the tondos of Virgin and Child, 
singing praises in veneration like pious choristers. 

79 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


The sacrifice is attended by a crowd of reverent spectators, 
who are standing around the altar in two circles, one narrower 
and the other wider. A considerable number of them, par- 
ticularly all the men standing in the foreground, are to be re- 
garded as portrait figures by reason both of their individualised 
features and of their costume. The cardinal in front on the 
right near the altar, Steinmann identifies as the Pope’s relative, 


Giuliano della Rovere, subsequently Pope Julius Il; the older’ 


bareheaded man of markedly small stature with a sceptre in 
his hand on the extreme right he takes to be another of his 
relatives, Girolamo Riario, the husband of Caterina Sforza, 
whom the Pope had recently appointed Gonfaloniere of the 
Church. The remainder of these animated figures have not as 
yet been identified, but no doubt they were intimately connected 
with the papal court. The two youths on the extreme right 
are splendid heads, genuine prototypes of Sandro’s angels, 
especially the one placed immediately above Girolamo Riario, 
so is the very similar one on the extreme left between the two 
men who are seated on the bench and engaged in vigorous 
argument; equally attractive is the boy on the left with the 
dark skull-cap on his fair hair, and the two fair girls behind 
him who look like his older sisters, but of whom it may be 
doubted whether they are really portraits from life or creatures 
of the artist’s fancy. We also discover splendid heads drawn 
as from life, such as the two men of advanced years beside the 
cardinal, and the powerful head of the man wearing many 
decorations and placed behind the High Priest, among other 
examples. Careful and sympathetic study will continually 
reveal fresh beauties and life-like types in this composition. 

One trait is characteristic of them all; the features are 
portrayed with simplicity and breadth and fully individualised ; 
the conception is serious and thoroughly realistic, but there 
is scarcely a trace of that peculiar expression of melancholy 
which we find in most of Botticelli’s later pictures. In this 

80 


BOTTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


respect they still resemble the portraits in the ‘ Adoration of 
the Kings’ in the Uffizi, and in conjunction with these they 
afford a basis for the criticism and dating of his single-figure 
portraits, which are almost without exception not authenticated 
by external evidence. Altogether this picture is rich in points of 
comparison useful for the accurate estimation of other works 
of the Master, especially those dating from the ’seventies. As 
instances, we have already cited the two female figures bearing 
burdens and the angels assembled around Christ; the fair-haired 
girls on the left-hand side of the picture are the prototypes of 
the allegorical female figures in the Tornabuoni frescoes in the 
Louvre; and the imaginary Gothic churches of the two towns 
situated respectively on the mountain side far away on the 
left and on the right beside a broad river reveal once again 
the artist’s recollection of old Flemish paintings and miniatures ; 
we have already met with similar instances in some of his earlier 
pictures, such as the ‘ St. Sebastian ’ of 1473/74 and the tondo 
_ of the Adoration in the National Gallery. 

Sandro’s second fresco with the scenes from the youth of 
Moses affords similar points of comparison. Here the artist 
has combined no less than seven scenes from the youth of Moses, 
which form the preparation for the mission to which Jehovah 
destined him as leader and saviour of his people. He shows 
us how the young Moses slays the Egyptian who was ill-treating 
his fellow Israelite, how, smittten with remorse, he takes flight 
into the desert, how he punishes the shepherds who prevented 
Jethro’s daughters from watering their sheep, how he then 
helps the women to water them, how, while keeping the flocks 
on the meadows of Sinai, he puts his shoes from off his feet at 
Jahve’s command in order to climb the mountain, how God 
appears to him on Sinai in the burning bush, gives him the 
Commandments and tells him of the Promised Land, for which 
we see him setting out with his people in the last scene on the 
left. The artist places all these scenes, each concentrated in 

6 81 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


a few figures, and all welded into one whole, on a well-wooded 
mountain slope; in the centre of the foreground he puts the 
most innocuous incident, the watering of the sheep by the 
daughters of the Midianite; the other scenes are grouped 
around it in the shade of the trees. The fresco thus becomes 
an idyllic genre-picture, which, in the midst of all the lavish 
and monumental historical pictures in the chapel, forms a delight- 
ful point of repose. To heighten this impression, he treats the 
landscape with a naturalism unusual in his other work, and the 
composition which began so tragically with murder and the 
murderer’s escape gains considerably in idyllic effect by the 
particularly life-like rendering of the sheep, by the sympathetic 
treatment of the women and children, who, in their flight, 
endeavour to save their treasured trifles, by richly ornamenting 
their dresses with gold embroidery and trimmings, and by a 
wealth of detail which scarcely attracts attention. In their 
profusion of fair hair, arranged in long plaits and heavy curls, 
the two shepherdesses by the well resemble the portraits of 
Simonetta. 

In this fresco there are hardly any portrait figures; in the 
exodus of the Jews, the stately oriental with a high turban 
who represents Aaron is probably the portrait either of a well- 
known Jewish banker established at Rome, or of some eastern 
envoy who happened to be there at the time; but apart from 
him, there is scarcely a head which can be declared with certainty 
a portrait. On the other hand, the types of Moses, of the 
warriors and priests of the Israelites, and of the maidens and 
children, are conceived and executed in very life-like fashion. 

In the third fresco allotted to Botticelli are combined three 
different scenes from the last years of Moses, and again it is 
Steinmann who has hit on the true interpretation of them :— 
‘The delegation of supreme power in the Church to St. Peter 
is testified in the New Testament by giving him the keys; 
that is the subject of a famous fresco painted by Perugino. 

82 


Sess on ee 


BOTTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


The Old Testament prototype of this event is Aaron’s spiritual 
hierarchy, with Moses coming forward to defend it against all 
opposition. He destroys the rebels against the priesthood of 
Aaron, he commands the congregation to stone him that has 
blasphemed the name of the Lord, but those who call upon 
His name to work miracles are saved; these do not put the 
rights of the Church in peril, but strengthen them.’ Behind 
the centre group the artist has introduced a free and powerful 
version of the triumphal arch of Constantine; even the rich 
reliefs are reproduced, and by order of Pope Sixtus it bears 
the inscription: ‘ Nemo sibi assumat honorem nisi vocatus a 
Deo tanquam Aron.’ This maxim is a terse and vigorous 
summary of the content of the three scenes; at the same time 
it conveys the Pope’s threat of the punishment which would 
swiftly follow any resistance to his papal authority. Steinmann 
believes that here, as in the Cleansing of the Leper, the Pope 
was alluding to a definite contemporary historical event, the 
punishment of Andrea Zamometic, the apostate Bishop of 
Krain, who in 1482 committed suicide in the prison at Basle. 
Here the three scenes are more sharply separated than in the 
other two frescoes, and are placed all on the same plane near 
the foreground, while behind each there rises separately a splendid 
piece of architecture. But the arrangement of these buildings 
and ruins is so skilfully contrived that it confers a measure of 
unity on the three subjects. All these are pitched in a high 
emotional key, but Botticelli, guided by his sense of beauty, 
treats them with great restraint. In this respect he has been 
particularly successful in the right-hand scene, which represents 
the arrest of the blasphemer who is to be stoned todeath. In 
the two other scenes, in which the evil-doers are destroyed by 
fire and by the earth swallowing them up respectively, there is 
something far-fetched, forced and angular about the gestures ; 
even the expression and bearing of Aaron and the aged Moses, 
praised as the prototype of the Moses of Michelangelo, are 
: 83 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


somewhat too theatrical in their sentiment. In this fresco, 
again, a considerable number of portraits are introduced. Behind 
the left-hand scene a father with his son, or a mentor with his 
disciple, whom Steinmann supposes to be the young Alessandro 
Farnese and his tutor Pomponius Leetus; behind the scene 
on the right six expressive heads, each covered with a simple 
black cap, presumably papal secretaries or other officials. Of 
these the comparatively young man standing second from the 
edge of the picture is now usually claimed to be a portrait of 
the artist himself; but his features show no convincing 
resemblance to those of the authenticated portrait in the Carmine 
at Florence, painted by Filippino, which cannot be more than 
a few years later in date. It is utterly different from the portrait 
in the Adoration of the Kings in the Uffizi, but this—as we have 
already seen—has still less claim to be considered a portrait 
of the artist by himself. 

The opening of the Sixtine Chapel took place in August 
1483; and it is commonly inferred that the artists completed 
their frescoes but a short while before. This, however, as 
Horne has shown, does not apply to several of the artists, 
Botticelli in particular; already in October 1482 he had been 
commissioned by the Signoria to decorate, jointly with Domenico 
Ghirlandajo, certain apartments in the Palazzo Vecchio, of which 
details are not specified in the records. We may therefore 
conclude that by that time both these artists had already returned 
from Rome. So far as Sandro is concerned this is also established 
by the fact that in 1482/83 he executed the great Altar-piece 
for San Barnaba, now in the Botticelli gallery in the Uffizi. 

Before we discuss in greater detail this extensive new field 
of the artist’s operations, we must answer the question raised 
by these frescoes in Rome, whether Sandro painted portraits 
to any notable extent. His great gifts for such work are testi- 
fied by the numerous admirable portraits in these Sixtine frescoes, 
as they had been in equal measure by the portraits in the 

84 





BOTTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


* Adoration of the Kings’ in the Uffizi. As this picture of the 
Adoration occupied a prominent position in one of the most 
frequented churches in Florence, and was consequently familiar 
to every Florentine, it must, seeing that it might almost be 
described as a portrait group, have constituted a strong induce- 
ment to the citizens of Florence to have their portraits painted 
by Botticelli. During his short stay of some eighteen months 
in Rome the artist would scarcely have found leisure to paint 
other pictures, even if they were but portraits, in addition to 
his great works in the Sixtine Chapel; but no doubt he had 
both the time and the opportunity in Florence, both before 
and after his visit to Rome. And indeed a whole series of 
portraits have been traditionally ascribed to the artist, while 
corresponding portraits have come to light since the revival 
of interest in the works of the Quattrocento. Nevertheless, 
Morelli’s disciples, following their master, are only willing to 
attribute two single-figure portraits to Botticelli, the full face 
portrait of a youth in the National Gallery, and the unpleasing 
portrait in the Uffizi, described formerly as Pierino de’ Medici 
or even as Pico della Mirandola, and now said to be Giovanni 
de’ Medici, because the subject is holding in his hands the medal- 
lion of the ‘ Pater Patrie.’ As Giovanni died in 1453, before 
his father, he cannot possibly be the person represented, for the 
medallion he is holding describes Cosimo as ‘ Pater Patriz ’ 
an honorific title not conferred on him till after his death, in 
1464. Moreover, Mino’s bust of Giovanni in the Bargello 

depicts quite a different head. Nor can we possibly impute — 
to Sandro such a lapse from good taste as to make the noble 
scion of the Medici hold in his hands his father’s medallion as 
a peasant-girl would hold a lemon. Furthermore, the hands 
are so horribly out of drawing that they cannot be ascribed 
to one whose drawing of hands was so masterly, and the almost 
parti-coloured landscape is very different from the landscape 
backgrounds in Sandro’s pictures. From the quite middle-class 

85 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


costume and the ostentatious fashion in which the subject 
of this picture displays the medallion, we may conclude that we 
are here concerned with a portrait of the artificer of the famous 
medallion painted by himself. 

If the ascription of this portrait of a medallist to Sandro 
must be abandoned, there remains, according to the Morelli 
school of criticism, which Herbert Horne adopts in his apprecia- 
tion of the artist’s portraits as he usually does in other respects, 
only the portrait of a youth in the National Gallery ; and this 
in its fresh and almost harsh style of expression is not even 
really characteristic of Sandro. The number of portraits from 
his hand is in point of fact comparatively large, considerably 
greater than from any other Florentine master of the period. 
We have already discussed in detail the portraits of Giuliano 
de’ Medici and of Simonetta Vespucci. Besides these, to the 
master’s early period, preceding his stay in Rome, belongs, 
besides the life-like portrait of a youth in London, the equally 
vivid portrait of a young aristocrat which was recently trans- 
ferred from the Liechtenstein Gallery to an American collection. 
This is still more typical of Sandro than the London picture 
on account of the window-frame which closes it in and the blue 
atmosphere behind; this blends with the red cap and the deep 
lilac-coloured coat to produce a very rich colour effect typical 
of Botticelli. Probably of still earlier date is the larger portrait 
of a man getting on in years, who is grasping his bright cloak 
with his right hand, and whose head of dark-brown hair stands 
out in strong reliefagainst the blue atmosphere. His grave, harsh 
features are conceived with so much individuality and vigour 
that in the Torrigiani Collection in Florence and subsequently 
by Rudolf Kann this picture was ascribed to A. del Castagno. 
But the costume is sufficient to show that it cannot have been 
painted in the lifetime of Castagno, who died in 1457; it is 
rather a characteristic and effective work of Sandro’s from about 
the middle of the ’seventies. To the same period belongs the 

86 


PeatiCELII AS FRESCO PAINTER 


almost half-length figure of a young woman, which was 
bequeathed to the Victoria and Albert Museum with the Ionides 
collection. This young lady of striking features is represented 
in a room looking out of the window, the shutters of which have 
been folded back inside. The space is so cramped that there 
is barely enough room for the woman in it, On the left the 
wall is pierced by a large window bisected by a slender pillar ; 
the wall at the back is also pierced, and through both apertures 
a patch of blue sky is visible, blending delicately with the pink 
dress, whose colour is subdued by a thin white wrap. This 
curious arrangement in a quite confined space is typical of nearly 
all Sandro’s interior scenes; this example is of special interest 
in that a double portrait in the Metropolitan Museum, the 
work of Sandro’s teacher, Fra Filippo, is an exact prototype 
of it. 

In simplicity of conception and in their fresh, healthy, 
expression these portraits of Sandro’s early period resemble 
those in the Adoration in the Uffizi, while the later ones mostly 
reveal the strain of melancholy which is a peculiar characteristic 
of Sandro’s Madonnas. A specially attractive example in this style 
is the portrait of a handsome young man in Dr. Eduard Simon’s 
collection in Berlin, formerly in the Duke of Leuchtenberg’s 
Gallery. Here, as in the smaller portrait of a youth with a 
big cap on his head in the Palazzo Pitti, the background 
of blue sky is a feature characteristic of Botticelli. Similar to 
the picture in Dr. Simon’s collection is the portrait acquired 
in Florence by the Louvre in the eighties of the nineteenth 
century; it represents a youth of wistful expression, dressed 
in black, with long dark hair, standing against a blue back- 
ground, and framed as it were by a window. In Florence this 
passed for the portrait of Domenico Burchiello, a Florentine 
barber famous for his practical jokes and satirical poems. But 
this man died as early as 1448; and the youth’s solemn and 


reserved expression is not appropriate to a barber and practical 
87 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


joker. The head of a handsome young Florentine in a dark 
brown cloak against a black background, which is in the poses- 
sion of the Berlin Gallery, makes a fresher impression. Very 
imposing is the portrait of a corpulent gentleman in black 
professorial robes against a dark background,~ which was 
bequeathed to the town of Philadelphia with the Johnson 
collection. The inscription on the background indicates that 
this austere and dignified gentleman with a tall cap on his 
long dark hair is the Florentine Lorenzo Lorenzano, Professor of 
Medicine at the University of Pisa during the latter part of the 
fifteenth century. 

The Palazzo Pitti Gallery possesses the picture, originally 
in the old Medici collection, portraying almost half-length and 
in profile a lady no longer young who is standing by a large 
open window. Not merely is this setting and its blue background 
typical of Botticelli and of him alone, but the delicate grey tone 
is also characteristic of him. The lady is neither beautiful nor 
graceful; her dress is strikingly simple and quite devoid of 
ornament. She was formerly described in the catalogue as 
Simonetta, which is certainly wrong. Ulmann has proposed 
instead the name of Clarice Orsini, the mother of Lorenzo, of 
whom a portrait by Sandro is mentioned in Duke Cosimo’s 
Guardaroba. In the ’eighties, when this picture must have 
been painted, she was something over thirty ; this corresponds 
with her age in the picture. Though the subject is unassuming 
and lacking in charm, the original conception, fine draughtman- 
ship and tone effect make this a noteworthy picture. Another 
female portrait in the somewhat inaccessible Lindemann Museum 
at Altenburg, shown by the dress to belong to the same period, 
is probably also correctly ascribed to Sandro; here again the 
setting in a confined space with two windows opening on a 
landscape is as typical of Sandro as the splendid drawing of the 
hands, the colouring and the treatment of the folds of the dress, 
and even the distant landscape, here treated with unwonted 

88 


moet LCELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


realism. The neck is too thin and its junction with the trunk 
strikingly unskilful; but this is not fatal to the attribution of 
the picture to Sandro, who in several of his finest female figures 
paints the base of the neck in similar if less unsuccessful fashion. 
It has been proposed to identify the subject as Caterina Riario 
Sforza; and this seems to be confirmed by the wheel, incon- 
spicuously inserted near her left hand; but like the palm-leaf 
in her hand and the halo, it is manifestly a later addition. The 
famous wife of Pope Sixtus IV’s relative Francesco Riario, 
subsequently the wife of Giovanni di Pierfrancesco de’ Medici, 
whose brother was a patron of Sandro’s for many years, may 
very well have sat to the artist for her portrait; but the fact 
remains that the admirable medallions of her which are still 
extant show but a very faint resemblance to the subject of this 
picture. In particular, she had an unusually short neck and was 
remarkably stout. 

Sandro, who was an enthusiastic admirer of Dante, has 
painted a portrait of the poet in profile after the well-known 
likeness in Giotto’s fresco in the Bargello. He doubtless in- 
tended this for his illustrations to the Divine Comedy, in which 
he introduced the figure of Dante several hundred times; the 
picture was formerly in Mrs. Alfred Seymour’s collection in 
London. Gustavo Frizzoni, in a report (Archivio Storico dell’ 
Arte 1889) on the then recently opened Museo Filangieri at 
Naples, gives an account of the portrait of a man aged about 
thirty, standing in the embrasure of a window and holding a 
handkerchief ; this picture, he says, is attributed to Ghirlandajo, 
but seems to him to be a quite characteristic work of Sandro’s ; 
on the other hand, he rejects the same gallery’s attribution to 
Sandro of the portrait of a youth by a balustrade, because it 
closely resembles a portrait of a youth in the Palazzo Pitti, 
ascribed to Castagno and already discussed in this book. But 
according to my view, this very resemblance would be an argu- 
ment in favour of Sandro. I am acquainted with neither of 

89 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


these portraits, and am therefore unable to express a definite 
opinion about them. 

For reasons unknown, the artist did not execute the already 
mentioned commission, which he received from the Signoria 
of Florence to decorate a hall in the Palazzo Vecchio, in conjunc- 
tion with Domenico Ghirlandajo, who was consequently in- 
structed to proceed with the work alone. But this commission 
proves what a reputation the artist had acquired as a fresco 
painter through his work in the papal chapel. A short while 
before, Leonardo had migrated to Milan; Verrocchio had been 
summoned to Venice to execute the Colleoni Monument; soon 
after, the commission for the monument of Pope Sixtus IV took 
the two Pollajuoli to Rome, and Filippino was still very young. 
In these circumstances, Domenico Ghirlandajo was Botticelli’s 
only serious competitor for the favour of the Florentine public. 
Domenico was in request almost exclusively as a fresco-painter, 
while Sandro in addition exercised the most multifarious and 
extensive activity as a painter of altar-pieces, smaller devotional 
pictures, portraits, drawings and designs for various works of 
artistic craftsmanship. The large number of more or less 
mechanical free imitations or even copies of works of his, which 
must have been painted after his return from Rome, proves 
that he could no longer fulfil all his contracts single-handed, 
and was compelled to entrust the execution of many orders to 
his studio, and it may well be for this reason that he occasion- 
ally refused even important commissions such as a share in the 
decoration of the halls in the Palazzo Vecchio. But although 
fresco work was less congenial to him than panel painting, 
yet he by no means entirely abandoned it even during this later 
Florentine period. More than one valuable work of this kind, 
about which tradition is silent, may have perished; the pure 
accident by which, some twenty or thirty years ago, the frescoes 
of the Villa Lemmi were brought to light makes this conjecture 
plausible. 

90 


k 
6 


BOLTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


We possess the description of a similar commission executed 
somewhat earlier, but the frescoes themselves unfortunately 
have not survived. Lorenzo il Magnifico commissioned Botticelli 
jointly with Ghirlandajo, Perugino and Filippino, to decorate 
his Villa Spedaletto near Volterra, and this enterprise was 
carried out in 1484 or thereabouts. Unfortunately the villa 
was destroyed by fire about a hundred years ago, and nothing 
survives but a few scanty fragments from the hand of Ghir- 
landajo, not even an account of what the frescoes were like. 
From the character of the patron and the participation of the 
most eminent painters in Florence we may with probability 
infer that we have here lost one of the most original and 
most precious memorials of the Florentine painting of the age. 
The lack of detailed information on the subject may be due to 
the remote situation of this Medicean Villa, which is now the 
property of the Dukes of Corsini. Another circumstance 
indicates the extent and importance of these frescoes; when 
Duke Ludovico Sforza asked an agent of his in Florence for the 
name of a capable Florentine artist, the names put forward 
were those of the men whom Sixtus IV had summoned to Rome, 
and mention was expressly made of the frescoes in the Villa 
Spedaletto as well as of those in the Sixtine Chapel. Cosimo 
Rosselli is the only one not named; perhaps a chance personal 
recommendation led to his call to Rome in company with the 
great masters; but the young Filippino, who had meanwhile 
become famous, is included. When some fifteen years later 
Isabella d’Este applied to her agent in Florence for similar 
information, he again named the same artists, with the exception 
of Ghirlandajo, by this time deceased. Such deliberate expres- 
sions of opinion by authoritative contemporaries are still of 
value to us to-day, because they prove that the artists stood 
in their own time in almost the same estimation as they do 
now, while such painters as Neri di Bicci, Jacopo Sellajo, 
Francesco Botticini and the like were never mentioned by true 

91 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


lovers of the fine arts, and received commissions for the most 
part only from well-disposed ecclesiastics and philistines. Such 
opinions are also valuable in another respect; they mention no 
artist whose name is not already familiar to us ; and consequently 
we have no reason, when dealing with eminent works which can- 
not straightway be assigned with complete assurance to this or 
that painter, to seek for anonymous and hitherto unrecognised 
masters, and trumpet them abroad as ‘amici’ or ‘ alunni.’ 

Botticelli’s frescoes already referred to, which were dis- 
covered in the Villa Lemmi outside Florence in 1873, were 
acquired by the Louvre a few years later. Although nothing 
is known of them from external sources, the portraits of the 
young married couple who are glorified therein have made it 
possible to establish with precision by whom they were com- 
missioned and when they were painted. Upon the two frescoes 
which have been preserved, though unhappily in a badly damaged 
condition, are represented the young Lorenzo Tornabuoni and 
his wife Giovanna degli Albizzi ; various medallions and portraits 
of both husband and wife (of the latter the most famous portrait 
by Ghirlandajo is in the Pierpont Morgan collection in New York) 
place the matter beyond doubt, even were it not also known 
that the villa was at that time the property of the Tornabuoni 
family ; no doubt it was expressly re-decorated on the occasion 
of the marriage on the 15th June, 1486, of this young couple, 
who were closely related to Lorenzo de’ Medici. On the one 
fresco we see the young husband being inducted into the 
circle of the seven liberal arts, on the other his wife, to 
whom the four cardinal virtues are bringing their gifts; typical 
themes drawn from medieval scholasticism, but treated in the 
free spirit of the Renaissance, and with an imagination and 
ingenuousness which belonged exclusively to Botticelli. Almost 
simultaneously, Antonio Pollajuolo was fashioning the same 
figures for the tomb of Sixtus IV and Pinturicchio was paint- 
ing them in the Appartamento Borgia, while Melozzo da Forli 

92 


Be LTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


had not long before delineated them on separate panels for the 
palace at Urbino; but all these artists still depicted them as 
separate and independent figures, following the example set 
by the Pisani, Giotto and other great masters of the thirteenth 
and fourteenth centuries. Botticelli treats them in two separate 
and self-contained compositions Giovanna degli Albizzi receives 
her gifts at the hands of the spokeswoman of the four cardinal 
virtues like a young duchess at a ceremonial reception; while 
young Lorenzo Tornabuoni’s induction into the sciences by 
Dialectic is the presentation of a distinguished youth before 
the tribunal of learned young women presided over by Philo- 
sophy enthroned upon a lofty seat. In the one picture Sandro 
symbolises the learning of the young Mecenas, in the other 
the virtue of his beautiful bride, clothing these allegories in two 
equally original and attractive genre-pictures as Raphael in the 
‘School of Athens’ embodied them in the most monumental 
of historical paintings. Italian art has created nothing more 
distinguished in aspect and deportment than the figures of this 
young patrician couple, nothing more girlish and ingenuous 
than this circle of maidens, only to be recognised as representa- 
tives of the abstract sciences by the emblems attached to them. 

The four women who are approaching the young bride are 
usually identified as Venus and the three Graces ; this is certainly 
a mistake, for they do not look the part in the slightest, least 
of all according to Sandro’s conception of it, as a glance at 
‘Spring’ demonstrates. The maidens on this fresco appear in 
their types, their plump figures, and the restless, thickly padded 
drapery as a development of the female figures in the Roman 
frescoes, especially in the ‘Cleansing of the Leper.’ In these 
respects they differ radically not merely from the female figures 
in the ‘Spring,’ but also from the ‘ Mars and Venus’ and from the 
‘Birth of Venus,’ a circumstance which corroborates the earlier 
date assigned to these pictures. Different again, not merely 
in the wholly novel arrangement but even in the types, appears 

93 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


the circle of maidens personifying the liberal arts. Their sharply 
defined, somewhat diminutive figures, their flaxen hair, their 
intimate association without any formality, lend to this company 
of young Florentines something of the air of a circle of German 
girls. In features they bear a striking resemblance to one 
another, while diverging from Sandro’s usual types, from which 
we conclude that they are all members of the same family. 
The setting of the fresco with the husband is in the open air 
against a dense grove of pines, that of the fresco with the wife 
in a well-lighted hall, at the side of which a fountain is play- 
ing; in the corner of each picture stands a boy with the arms, 
now obliterated, of the Tornabuoni and Albizzi. The lucky 
star under which this handsome couple were born and betrothed 
by their noble parents unhappily suffered a premature eclipse ; 
within a few years Giovanna died, and Lorenzo, the Magnifico’s 
godchild, was beheaded in 1497 during the rule of Savonarola, 
because he was suspected of plotting for the restoration of the 
Medici. 

To about the same date as these frescoes belongs another 
allegorical composition, which Sandro painted for the Medici 
themselves under the guise of classical mythology; on this 
occasion, as Horne supposes, for Lorenzo’s cousins, Lorenzo 
and Giovanni di Pierfrancesco de’ Medici. The picture shows 
Minerva clutching by the hair a wild centaur whom she has 
pursued and overtaken, and who begs piteously for mercy. The 
disproportion of the figures—for the goddess, a handsome and 
imposing maiden with long flowing, golden tresses, is consider- 
ably bigger than the centaur—the ostentatious and incongruous 
caparison of the goddess in the fashion of the day with a mighty 
halberd at her side and a heavy shield on her back, her soft 
outlines and sympathetic expression, the rich and splendid 
colours, the almost affected manner in which she has seized 
the monster by a single lock of hair, give this scene the air of 
a very improbable living picture posed for the moment only. The 

94 


BOTTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


ingenuous charm which is infused into his other allegorical and 
mythological fancies and makes them life-like and convincing, 
is here sadly lacking; the idealised Florentine dress will not 
harmonise with this antique representation. Minerva’s costume 
and adornment make the allegorical significance of the picture 
easy to understand; the white drapery of the dress is thickly 
bespangled with the interlaced diamond rings, the emblem of 
Lorenzo il Magnifico ; at the neck the dress is edged with a border 
of these rings, and a large diamond ring secures to her breast 
the dainty olive sprays which cover the upper part of her body, 
while another completes the wreath of olive sprays adorning 
the head of the goddess. It is the blessings of Lorenzo’s reign 
that are here symbolised; this picture of Pallas victorious 
and splendidly arrayed is intended to show us how he has over- 
come his enemies at home and abroad, how he has fostered the 
arts and sciences, and made Florence the flourishing centre 
of Italy. A precipitous cliff indicates that the goddess has 
pursued the monster to the mountain top and captured him 
here where no escape is possible. The stratification of the 
rock in layers like those of basalt reveals the impression made 
upon the artist by the imaginary rock-formations in such paint- 
ings of Leonardo’s as the ‘ Saint Jerome,’ the ‘ Madonna in the 
Grotto ’ and the * Resurrection.’ 

To the period immediately following his return from Rome 
belong Botticelli’s designs for four panel-pictures with scenes 
from Boccaccio’s tale of the love of Nastagio degli Onesti, for 
the daughter of Paolo Traversari, pictures which have been 
transferred from the Pucci Gallery to various private collections. 
These panels were already mentioned by Vasari; and, as Horne has 
pointed out, they were painted as a wedding present for Lucrezia 
di Piero di Giovanni Bini on the occasion of her marriage with 
Giannozzo Pucci in 1483 and not, as was hitherto assumed, 
for the marriage of Lucrezia Pucci in 1487. The position 
assigned to the Pucci coat of arms on two of the panels is intended 

95 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


to indicate this. Boccaccio’s story relates how Nastagio was 
wandering in the Pineta, a pine-wood outside Ravenna already 
famous in those days, when suddenly a naked woman dashed 
past him, pursued by a horseman with his hounds. (First 
picture.) The horseman overtakes the hard-hearted beloved, 
tears the heart out of her body and casts it to his dogs for 
them to devour; horrified, Nastagio takes flight. (Second 
picture.) On the day on which this ghastly vision regularly 
recurs, Nastagio entertains Paolo Traversari with his over- 
modest daughter and their friends in the Pineta, when suddenly 
the naked maiden once again flies past the festive board with 
the horseman in hot pursuit. (Third picture.) Upon Nastagio 
expounding the apparition to his guests, his timorous beloved 
accords him her hand. The fourth and last panel depicts the 
celebration of their marriage. 

These pictures differ so much in treatment and design, 
especially of the landscape,- from Botticelli’s characteristic 
style, as to make it seem out of the question that he himself 
had any share in their execution. Whether this was carried 
out by Sellajo or by Bartolommeo di Giovanni, whose names have 
been suggested in this connection, cannot, as it seems to me, 
be established, but Vasari is probably correct in stating that 
Sandro is the inventor of these charming compositions. They 
are as typical of him as are the individual figures, whereas 
the forest scenes with the sea in the distance reveal an artist 
whose notions of landscape were more naturalistic than Sandro’s. 
The great banquet is admirable in construction and rich 
ornamentation, and reveals the master’s invention even in its 
details. In its general design as in its profiles and capitals, the 
imposing hall is typical of Sandro’s treatment of architecture 
in the ’eighties ; so is the triumphal arch behind, the counter- 
part of which we meet again in his later panel picture with 
the Death of Lucrece. The splendid decoration of the feast, 
down to the separate pieces of silver plate on the sideboard | 

96 


BOTTICELLI AS FRESCO PAINTER 


in the foreground, the arrangement of the guests, even the 
slender figures of the pages, have been thought out and sketched 
by the master with special care. The types, too, are Botticellian 
throughout, only the execution is strange and unworthy of him. 
Here once again an intimate family celebration must needs 
minister to the glory of Lorenzo il Magnifico, whose arms and 
emblems are displayed in the centre between the arms of Pucci 
and Bini. The guests appear to be partly portrait figures, 
but I do not think we are justified in identifying two of them 
as Giuliano dei Medici and Poliziano. 


CHAPTER VI 


BOTTICELLI IN THE ’EIGHTIES AS A PAINTER OF ALTAR- 
PIECES 


Botticelli still frequently painted scenes with a mytho- 

logical and allegorical significance, and even later 
such paintings did not altogether disappear from the range of 
his representations, although they did not occupy him to any- 
thing like the extent they had done in the years preceding his 
Roman activities. His chief occupation now, thanks to the 
commissions he received from all sides, and also from sheer 
delight in such work, was the painting of religious pictures, 
large altar-pieces and smaller paintings for churches and private 
oratories. Just as the artist had begun his career with such 
subjects, so now, after an interval of nearly ten years, he devoted 
himself to this work from choice and with the happiest results, 
and the cult of the Madonna, so noticeable in those early 
paintings, still filled his heart and claimed the devoted ser- 
vice of his brush. A great number of these pictures go by 
the name of Botticelli, and, in a way, they have a claim on 
it, for even if not executed by his hand, they can be traced 
back to his conceptions and are either his designs carried 
out by pupils, or true copies of his pictures, or more or less 
free imitations. 

In order to appreciate the Master and enjoy him to the 
full we must, of course, confine ourselves to his own original 
paintings, but at the same time it is important to discover 

98 


[) the first years after his return from Rome 


mew liCHRLIT IN THE ‘EIGHTIES 


among the works of pupils such pictures as seem likely from their 
conception and feeling to be imitations of lost originals or 
executed after the Master’s designs. We must not completely 
neglect them, as Morelli and Horne did, especially as we learn 
very little about Botticelli’s pupils from contemporary records 
and old literature ; in fact, the only really tangible figure amongst 
them is Filippino Lippi, whose early works already strike us 
as quite original in style and therefore not to be mistaken for 
Sandro’s. The next figure, set up under the name ‘Amico 
di;Sandro,’ partly as pupil and partly as a colleague of the 
Master’s, is an imaginary creation, to whom have been ascribed 
original works by Sandro and Filippino, and imitations of both, 
together with pictures in quite a different manner. Horne 
wanted to follow up his big volume on Botticelli with another 
about his pupils; unfortunately this has never appeared, though 
the author is supposed to have had it ready in MS. for a long 
time. ‘Although independent criticism of pictures is Horne’s 
weakest point, still by his very thoroughness and diligence he 
would have amassed a lot of material that might very likely 
have yielded new and valuable information about Botticelli 
himself. 

As we have seen, the artist’s youthful pictures, with the 
exception of two or three, were exclusively pictures of Madonnas. 
The last and most finished of these early paintings, the Chigi 
Madonna in Boston, dates from the early ’seventies; and it 
is now widely believed that from this time until after his return 
from Rome no more pictures of this kind were painted. A group 
of Madonnas that are ascribed to the first years of this second 
period in Florence certainly exhibit a new and peculiar character 
that is common to them all. It is true that several of the early 
pictures already show the Virgin attended by a pair of angels 
and the little St. John, but the later representations of Madonnas, 
in their great dimensions, their almost life-size figures, and their 
round shape, are essentially different from the early small square 

90 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


panels that still closely followed Fra Filippo’s composition 
of Madonnas, as we can see in the Uffizi. Already in the 
‘Adoration of the Kings’ in the National Gallery, painted 
fully ten years earlier, the artist, following his teacher’s 
example, chose this shape that for several decades after must 
have been the rule for such pictures, for his pupils and 
most of the other Florentine painters followed him in this 
respect. 

We have, so far as I know, absolutely no idea why pictures 
in the round were so extraordinarily popular in Florence, and, 
if I remember rightly, not one of these numerous tondos is still 
in its place, nor do we know exactly where they originally hung. 
For christening bowls (descht da parto), and for armorial bear- 
ings and small decorative panels that had their places on the 
wall, on columns or elsewhere, this shape was suitable and had 
long been popular, but it is not so favourable for placing on 
an altar. It is possible that the great rage in sculpture for 
the tondo that Luca della Robbia had made the favourite 
shape, particularly for reliefs of the Madonna, had set this 
example for painting. In sculpture they were eminently suit- 
able as finishing touches for tombstones and altars, in architec- 
ture and elsewhere, but as paintings they could by no means 
be similarly used. Nevertheless, we note that even artists like 
Michelangelo and Raphael repeatedly make use of the tondo 
for their Madonnas. Whenever this round shape was chosen 
for a Madonna, it was always given a very richly carved and 
gilded frame, often partly coloured as well, and we have learned 
from various frames of Botticelli’s pictures that have been 
preserved that he considered beautiful and perfect frames, 
suitable in tone and colouring to set off the effect of the picture, 
of the highest importance, and he himself superintended their 
design, gilding, and colouring. Even in his later period we 
find this confirmed. 

The earliest of these Madonnas in the round, and at the 

100 


POTTEICELLI “IN THE‘ *EIGHTIES 


same time the finest in expression, drawing, and colouring, with 
its beauty heightened by perfect preservation, is the ‘ Raczynski 
Madonna’ in the Berlin Gallery. Yet it is this very picture 
that has been pronounced by Giovanni Morelli in his ‘ Method ’ 
not the Master’s but a poor school work. Morelli’s disciples, 
including Horne, support this theory, although they admit 
themselves that their leader was not very happy in his criticism 
of Botticelli, and although Bocchi in his description of Florence 
already points to this picture in San Francesco al Monte as one 
of the Master’s greatest works. The composition is strictly 
symmetrical. Mary is seated in the middle, almost full face, 
clasping the Child with both hands, while He turns from His 
Mother’s breast towards the beholder. Four angels stand on 
either hand, those on one side singing from a hymn-book, those 
on the other pausing in their singing, and all holding in their 
hands sprays of lilies in full bloom. Over the head of the Mother 
of God hands of unseen angels hold a crown from which golden 
rays stream down upon the group. Mary’s head is in shape 
a longish oval, with a prominent chin; her features wear the 
melancholy expression in still greater measure than even the 
Madonnas of Botticelli’s youth. The angels are beautiful, half- 
erown youths very much alike, with strong, typical features, 
and expressions of quiet kindly seriousness. In their boldly 
outlined figures, their thick golden or chestnut curls, their 
finely drawn, mobile hands, their varied, tasteful and clever 
foreshortening, they resemble the youthful figures in the ° Adora- 
tion of the Kings’ in the Uffizi. 

The deep blue of Mary’s cloak with its dark green lining, 
and the light purple inclining to pink worn by the angel fore- 
most on the right, are more decided, otherwise the deep flesh 
tinting and the delicately subdued true colours are similar 
to those in the Uffizi ‘ Adoration,’ in ‘Spring’ and in other 
paintings dating from the late ’seventies. Hence we must place 
this tondo round about 1479, in any case before the Roman 

101 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


sojourn. The true colours are almost more subdued than in 
the above-named pictures; this is effected by means of trans- 
parent whitish veiling, rich embroideries, ornaments and haloes 
of gold, introduced in the daintiest patterns and delicately toned 
down, almost exactly as in the cloak of Venus in ° Spring.’ 
Against the pale blue sky with the milk-white lilies before it, 
and in this glittering haze of dull gold, whose delicate, softened 
rays spread almost over the whole picture, the rich colours 
produce so splendid, so peculiar a chromatic effect, that the 
justifiable reproach that painters of the Quattrocento were 
wanting in colour sense has really no application to this picture. 
In the original paintings of Botticelli’s prime—the ’seventies 
and ’eighties—whenever they, like this Madonna, have by 
chance been preserved untouched, the artist shows a pecu- 
liar charm of colouring that no other Florentine painter of 
the period approached, and that scarcely yields place even 
to the true colour-schools of Venice and Ferrara. This cool, 
quite unique harmony of powerful colours is seen again half 
a century later in the colour schemes of a few masterpieces by 
Bronzino, whose work had otherwise often a harsh and glaring 
effect. 

Another tondo of the Madonna with angels, that closely 
resembles the Berlin picture in composition, conception and 
colouring, is the ‘Madonna with the Pomegranate’ in the 
Uffizi Gallery. The arrangement is almost the same; instead 
of four angels, there are three standing on either side of the 
Virgin, who, seen full face in almost the same position, occupies 
the centre of the picture. The smaller number of figures makes 
the composition freer and less crowded; it is also an improve- 
ment that the angels are not arranged all on the same level, 
leaving off in a straight line, but form a kind of elliptical are. 
Here also a stream of golden rays pours down from above, 
although the crown over the Mother of God is wanting ; and once 
more the costumes, especially Mary’s dress and veil, are adorned 

102 


POLTTICELLI IN THE EUGHTIES 


with rich golden ornaments. Hence the colour effect of this 
equally well-preserved painting is splendid and yet tempered 
as in the Raczynski tondo; nevertheless, here the tone is duller 
and the paint, through dirt and old varnish, less vivid. The 
fioures of the angels seem younger, more soft and boyish; in 
the drawing of the hands the wrists and knuckles are less 
accentuated ; the details, especially in the faces—the line of 
the mouth, the lips, the eyebrows and the bridge of the nose 
—are less sharply drawn, less full and mobile, and the hair 
is no longer so tightly curled as in the other picture. More- 
over, on the faces of the angels and the Babe there lies almost 
the same melancholy expression as on Mary’s countenance. 
The pose of the Child is doubtless very natural in its awkward- 
ness, but it is less happy and tasteful than in the Berlin picture. 
All these more or less notable differences prove that the 
‘Madonna del Melagrano’ was painted several years later 
than the other tondo, probably not till soon after Sandro’s 
return from Rome. One other great charm of this picture 
is that it still has its original, richly gilt frame of little lilies on 
a blue background amongst creeping foliage. The large effect 
of the painting is enhanced by the small, elaborate pattern 
of its frame. 

By far the best known and the favourite of these Madonnas 
in the round with worshipping angels is the so-called * Magnifi- 
cat’ in the Uffizi, ‘the purest prayer that Tuscan art in the 
Quattrocento ever offered to the Virgin,’ as a biographer of the 
artist (Jahn-Rusconi) calls it. Here Botticelli departed from 
the strictly symmetrical composition of the above-mentioned 
tondos; the construction is essentially freer, but no longer 
so powerful and impressive. Mary turns sideways towards the 
two angels who are holding out to her an inkpot and a book 
in which she is in the act of writing the song of praise: ° Magnifi- 
cat anima mea dominum,’ etc. A third angel, standing a little 
higher, has his arms round the others and gazes reverently at 

103 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


the writing, whilst to right and left of this group, farther back, 
stand two angels holding a dainty golden crown over the head 
of the divine Mother. The Child, who is holding in his left 
hand a pomegranate, has laid His tiny right hand on His 
Mother’s as she writes, and looks up at her as if He wished to 
inspire her with the significance of the writing. The round 
arch that closes in this scene leaves free one small outlook 
over the landscape. Im this, and in its construction and the 
variety of delicate allusions, the composition exhibits an almost 
sixteenth-century freedom. Conception and figures are equally 
graceful, even though the foreshortening of the Babe is not 
entirely successful. But it is the poor state of the picture’s 
preservation that detracts most from its artistic effect; it has 
been much cleaned and badly treated by a restorer, particularly 
in the flesh parts. Moreover, it does not compare with 
the ‘ Raczynski’ and ‘del Melagrano’ Madonnas in bold 
effect and grave expression. The freer arrangement as well 
as the plastic appearance indicate that the picture was 
painted later than either of the others—not till the middle 
’eighties. 

Probably from a couple of years later still is a large tondo 
of the Madonna with six angels, and the little St. John at the 
feet of the Child Christ, who leans from His Mother’s arms 
holding His hand out in benediction over the little worshipper. 
This splendid picture is in the Borghese Gallery in Rome, and 
its beauty has so far been kept fairly intact by good preserva- 
tion, except for the Virgin’s blue cloak, which has been painted 
over. But the critics have treated it quite as badly as the 
* Raczynski Madonna’ in Berlin; once Morelli, with some 
hesitation, had declared it to be a pupil’s work, his many dis- 
ciples simply rejected it, without even trying to find any serious 
confirmation of their theory. This scene also is highly original, 
quite in the Botticellian manner. The Virgin is seated on a 
stone bench enclosed in a low stone balustrade behind which 

104 


BOTTICELLI' IN THE ‘EIGHTIES 


the angels stand. Similar stone balustrades had already been 
used by the artist in the early Madonnas in Naples and Boston ; 
and in a manner greatly resembling several earlier pictures, 
such as St. Augustine and others, the narrow space is closed 
in by panelled stone walls and a large open window. Sandro’s 
love of flowers and their tasteful arrangement comes here into 
full play; the angels have chaplets of flowers on their hair 
and lilies in their hands, while behind the Madonna’s seat there 
are flat bowls of roses on tall bronze candelabras. This gay 
brightness of colour diffused by the flowers is a cheerful echo 
of the rich tones of the costumes in all the combinations and 
Shading peculiar to Botticelli, particularly round about the 
middle ’eighties. Moreover, the arrangement and draping of 
the costumes is especially characteristic of this period, as is 
proved by a comparison with the ‘Coronation of the Virgin’ 
in the Uffizi. 

With what skill and delicacy the artist makes use of every- 
thing is shown by the way he manages to utilise the bright 
light falling on the ground and flat top of the low stone balus- 
trade, with its reflections, to illuminate his colour scheme and 
strengthen the unity of effect. The types of the particularly 
graceful and well-drawn angels, boys of from twelve to four- 
teen years, differing essentially from the austerely beautiful 
youths in the ‘ Raczynski Madonna’ and the ‘ Madonna del 
Melagrano,’ have the peculiarly gentle appearance and lovely 
expression of the angels in the ring round the Almighty and 
the Virgin in the ‘Coronation of Mary’ in the Uffizi, and 
their long hair, smooth rather than in curls, is common to these 
two pictures. Nevertheless, the types in the Coronation, with 
their preponderating decorative intention, are more uniform 
than those in the Borghese picture, where they are unusually 
individual and varied. The over-small boy St. John is the one 
less successful figure that is usually to be found in Sandro’s 
pictures. The rich gold, introduced in dainty ornaments, such 

105 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


as are only found in Sandro’s pictures, is here used partly for 
illumination and partly for toning down, particularly in the 
lining of the cloak with its pattern of green and gold. The 
picture is not so melancholy as the earlier tondos of the Madonna 
with angels; its tone is rather one of a joyful but serious 
adoration. | 

In this painting the Blessed Virgin appears for the first time 
full length, as she does also in the large tondo in the Berlin 
Gallery: the ‘Madonna with seven angels holding candles.’ 
Here she is represented standing in front of a coloured stone 
niche and supporting the Child as He stands on the railing. 
In the formation of the coloured stone floor and the double 
balustrade, although quite different from the Borghese painting, 
a similar effect is aimed at, but in other respects the arrange- 
ment is quite new. Sandro was apparently led to compose 
this picture by his illustrations for Dante. Just as some of 
the figures and ideas in the great panel of the Coronation of 
the Virgin appeared in a large drawing of the ‘ Purgatorio ’ 
showing the triumphal chariot of the Church, so here also the 
angels with the seven candlesticks are symbolic of the seven 
gifts of the Holy Ghost, and borrowed from the Apocalypse. 
No artist but Botticelli, who was as sure of his Bible as he was 
of Dante, would have thought of this scene or have depicted 
it in so original a manner; the Master can be recognised both 
in the conception and drawing of even the smallest detail. The 
execution, however, betrays a pupil’s hand: the heads are too 
much alike, the colours are too poor and their effect too uniform, 
and this is heightened by the fact that the picture has not 
been preserved untouched. 

In order rightly to understand the contrast between such 
a picture and true school-works, one should compare it with 
the large tondo in the Corsini Gallery at Florence : the ‘ Madonna 
with’ six angels.” Pictures like that seem almost caricatures of 
Sandro’s paintings, so also does the ‘ Coronation of the Virgin ’ 

106 


Boo LIiCELLI IN THE “EIGHTIES 


in the Conservatorio della Quiete in Florence, and the rather 
free imitation in the Turin Gallery of Verrocchio’s masterpiece 
in the Uffizi in Florence: ‘* Tobias journeying with the Arch- 
angels,’ and others. Almost all school-works of this kind, a 
large number of which are Madonnas, owe portions to the 
Master’s originals, even when they are not absolute copies. 
This borrowing is, however, usually so unskilfully done that, 
when looking at such pictures, one would hardly even think of 
Sandro. Whenever the same composition reappears exactly 
in several school-works, it is natural to assume that they were 
based on a lost original by the artist. This was probably the 
case in the tondo in the London National Gallery and at Prince 
Chigi’s in Rome of the ‘Madonna Crowned by Two Angels,’ 
in the ‘Madonna with Two Angels’ in the Vienna Academy, 
formerly ascribed to Sandro himself, and in many others. And 
when in such school-works the principal motive is quite new 
and unusually fine in conception, we may assume that it was 
borrowed from a painting of Sandro’s, even if the rest of the 
picture is too poor to have been conceived by the Master. We 
learn to recognise such charming new Botticellian motives in 
the school-works of ‘ the Adoration of the Child ’ in the Piacenza 
Gallery (this composition reappears in the drawing for the 
Adoration picture of 1500), in the Madonna seated on the ground 
with her Child at her breast in the Turin Gallery, in a ‘ Madonna 
worshipped by the little St. John’ in the possession of Mr. 
J. P. Heseltine in London, and elsewhere. 

For the criticism of these Madonnas and for their date the 
large altar-pieces representing the ‘ Virgin Enthroned with 
Saints’ affords a good foundation, as we possess the original 
records of these, Sandro’s chief works, dating from the ’eighties 
of that century. The earliest and at the same time the finest, 
indeed Sandro’s most splendid altar-piece, is the large “ Madonna 
Enthroned with Six Saints,’ a painting the artist undertook 
directly after his return from Rome, for the Church of San 

107 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Barnaba and completed in 1483; it is now in the Botticelli 
room at the Uffizi. Unfortunately the picture has been much 
cleaned and badly restored; it is, nevertheless, still the most 
effective Florentine altar-piece of the Quattrocento. In a 
splendid marble niche raised above three steps in a chapel 
of the richest architecture the Virgin is enthroned, holding 
the Child standing on her knee while He turns in benediction 
to the congregation. Three saints stand on either side of the 
throne, whilst two young angels are parting the ermine-lined, 
deep red, gold embroidered curtains over the throne and fasten- 
ing them at each side of the chapel, and two other angels in 
tears hold out to the Child the implements of martyrdom, the 
crown of thorns and the nails. In composition and architecture 
it is richer than any other Florentine altar-piece of the period, 
and yet in arrangement it is so symmetrical, in effect so calm, 
in tone so grave and solemn, that no altar-piece even by artists 
such as Pollajuolo, Ghirlandajo, or Filippino, can be compared 
to it. The inscription on a bronze plate on the top step of 
the throne, taken by Sandro from Dante’s Paradise : VER- 
GINE MADRE FIGLIA DEL TVO FIGLIo, reveals the spirit of 
pious mysticism in which the artist composed this splendid 
scene. 

Mary’s head, as she looks out from the picture lost in 
thought, is similar to the Venus in the Uffizi picture, and the 
young angels resemble those of the “Madonna with the Pome- 
granate.’ They are all graceful creations, such as were con- 
ceived by Sandro alone. Still more original and impressive, 
and yet a true Botticellian figure, is the St. Catherine on the 
extreme left. The male saints ranged beside her are dignified 
in appearance and bearing, but, when examined in detail, they 
show that in Sandro’s feeling there was a strong feminine strain 
and that he was less successful in the portrayal of male char- 
acters. The poorest figure is that of the Archangel Michael 
who, in spite of his splendid armour and strong likeness to 

108 


Pere rCRELELT IN THE "EIGHTIES 


Verrocchio’s Michael, has all the appearance of a young actress 
playing a man’s part. The Baptist beside him is an almost 
exact, but considerably weaker, copy of Donatello’s well-known 
statue of St. John. The three aged saints, Barnabas, Ambrose, 
and Augustine, are dignified, even imposing figures, but their 
characterisation is attained by their heavy beards rather than 
through individual treatment of the heads. The delight in 
the fullest perfection and the richest ornamentation of architec- 
ture which is generally so noticeable in Botticelli’s later works 
—until Savonarola’s teaching reduced him to the utmost 
simplicity even in that respect—here reaches its strongest 
expression; but as the details and graceful ornaments with 
which he has covered the building are well subordinated, the 
massive proportions of the architecture and their simple shapes 
and outlines are elegant and very effective. Thanks to the 
general grandeur of form and colour effect produced by the 
massive architecture, the lack of individuality in the figures 
is hardly noticeable. 

In the year 1485 Sandro had to paint another, smaller altar- 
piece for the Bardi chapel in the Church of the Santo Spirito, 
and for this painting there are records of payments extending 
from February to August. Through the good offices of Rumohr 
the picture reached the Berlin Gallery, but unfortunately with- 
out the particularly splendid frame for which Giuliano da San 
Gallo had been paid the considerable sum of 62 gold ducats, 
whilst Sandro only received 35 gold ducats for the painting 
itself. This picture is well-preserved, almost as it issued from 
the studio; it betrays the Master’s hand in the loving care 
with which it is finished, even down to the smallest detail. 
Conception and arrangement are once more original and masterly 
in the highest degree. The Virgin is sitting in a niche in the 
middle of a low balustrade of variegated marble, with her feet 
on the projecting plinth; on her right stands the aged Evange- 
list St. John with book and pen in his hand; on her left is John 

109 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


the Baptist, pointing to the Holy Babe Who stretches out 
His hands longingly towards His Mother, who is on the point 
of giving Him the breast. In their quiet pose and simple 
arrangement the statuary effect of these figures is remarkable, 
and the men, especially the Baptist, are stronger and more 
individual than in the altar-piece of San Barnaba; the Child 
alone shows animation, the conception of this figure being 
particularly childlike and skilfully foreshortened. A grave 
tone broods over this scene also, but without the melancholy 
strain of the other great altar-piece and most of the tondos 
to the glory of the Virgin. Nevertheless, here also the artist 
already gives indications of the sacrifice of the death of Christ ; 
against a dark vase in the foreground rests a little painting 
of the Crucified, a golden cross holds together the plaited palms 
over the Madonna’s head, and a few lines written on little papers 
which pass almost unnoticed among the roses and greenery 
foretell the mission of the Lord. These inscriptions, taken 
from the scholastic work ‘The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of 
Sirach’ are, when completed, as follows: QUASI PLANTATIO 
ROSE IN IERICHO—QVASI OLIVA SPEZIOSA IN CAMPIS SICVT LILIVM 
IN CAMPIS—QVASI CEDRVS EXALTATA SVM IN LIBANO—QVASI 
PALMA EXALTATA SVM IN CADES—QVASI CVPRESSVM IN MONTE 
SION—QVASI PLATANVS EXALTATA SVM IVXTA AQVAM IN 
PLATEIS. 

Instead of the plane tree, which was unknown to him, the 
artist has worked in an arbour of olive branches behind the 
Evangelist. The bower-like green niches of palm _ leaves, 
cypresses and olive branches all have symbolic reference to the 
saints behind which they are placed. It is the rich splendid 
green of these artificial arbours rising behind the marble balus- 
trade as a background to the three figures, increased by the 
deep green grass under foot, that gives the picture its powerful 
striking colour effect. Only a few vivid colours, harmonising 
with this rich green, were possible, and for this reason Sandro ~ 

110 


Pet eGEL LL IN THE "EIGHTIES 


confined himself to the paints demanded by the customary, 
almost sacred, colouring of the Virgin’s clothes, that is to say 
to red and blue, and especially red, which he shades from a 
deep pink to purple and copper; only the Madonna’s shoes, 
whose tips are scarcely visible under the blue cloak, are deep 
brick red in colour. A few ornaments of gold, Mary’s golden 
hair, and a couple of yellowish lemons in the upper corners 
strike a lighter note here and there, while the white lilies beside 
the Madonna stand out with luminous clearness against the 
pale blue sky that shines through the greenery. It is this 
striking selection of colours that makes the picture stand out 
with such impressive originality even amongst the master’s 
own works. Besides its highly original conception, a special 
charm lies in the loving and careful finish of the fabrics, orna- 
ments and vessels, and particularly of the trees and flowers, 
whose devoted lover the artist here unmistakably declares 
himself. 

A third great altar-piece that belongs to the end of this 
period of the artist’s career, the ‘Coronation of the Virgin’ 
in the Uffizi at Florence, is also authenticated by records; it 
was commissioned in 1490 for the Church of San Marco by the 
mercers’ guild, A choir of cherubim surrounds the central 
group, which represents Mary receiving the crown from God 
the Father and encircled by a ring of dancing angels, while to 
right and left other angels scatter roses. On the Earth below 
stand the four aged saints, John the Evangelist, Augustine, 
Jerome, and Eligius, gazing upward in adoration, and in these 
figures Titian’s temperament is said to be discernible. Between 
them a barren landscape is visible, and the whole construction 
is in two dimensions only, and resembles a pattern for a carpet. 
The figures are grave and impressive, Eligius and Jerome being 
unusually individual. But the centre of attraction is the circle 
of angels which, in the buoyant and graceful movements of their 
dainty figures, in the billowy folds of the rich costumes so 

111 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


exactly adapted to those movements, clearly betray the master- 
hand of the Graces in ‘ Spring.’ That the beautiful boy figures 
are not so varied as in the large tondos of the Madonna wor- 
shipped by angels is explained by the fact that in these big 
altar-pieces they have a more subordinate, decorative significance. 
The rich natural colours already appear harder and colder 
than in the Berlin panel from the Santo Spirito, and the whole 
effect lacks the freshness and the imposing originality of earlier 
altar-pieces, hence we must assume the collaboration of pupils 
inits execution, and this assumption is supported by the number 
of other works that Botticelli had in hand at the same time, 
by the size of the panel and the shortness of the time occupied 
in its completion. In this picture the artist contrived to invest 
the divine glory with special' charm by making the group 
of the Virgin’s coronation, which is closed in by a semicircle 
of vivid blue and rosy cherubim, stand out completely from 
a clear sea of light and within a circle of luminous golden 
rays. 

In contrast to the stolid and almost insipid central personages 
of this composition, the figures in a smaller altar-piece of the 
‘Annunciation’ are almost too animated. This panel, which 
is now in the Uffizi, was painted at about the same time, in the 
year 1489/90 for Santa Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi to the order 
of Benedetto di Ser Giovanni Guardi. The angel, who has 
sunk on one knee, betrays his tempestuous entry by the still 
billowing folds of his garments, whilst the startled Virgin appears 
to be collapsing at her praying stool. Quite erroneously this 
picture was looked upon as a school-work, and Horne claims 
to detect the hands of pupils in its execution at least, but the 
painting is rather a work of Sandro’s own hand characteristic 
of this later period; and in its perfect preservation and its 
original fine altar-frame it affords a particularly good example 
of the Master’s art immediately before Savonarola’s influence. 
The mathematician Paccioli’s praise of Sandro for his good 

112 


BOTTICELLI IN THE ’EIGHTIES 


perspective is no doubt due to his correct drawing of interiors, 
which is particularly striking in the chequered floor. The 
colouring is here almost colder than in the Coronation, but the 
total effect is delightfully harmonious because the coloured 
frame suits it so exactly. 

Representations of the Annunciation occupied the artist 
repeatedly in this later period. According to documentary 
evidence he painted in the Monastery of San Martino a fresco 
of the Annunciation that has long ago disappeared. The 
Berlin Museum possesses a school-work of the same subject 
that closely resembles the Uffizi picture, but is hardly traceable 
to the master even in design. On the other hand a very small 
painting of the Annunciation, formerly in the Barberini Gallery 
and now in the collection of Oskar Huldschinsky in Berlin, 
has lately quite wrongly been rejected as Botticelli’s work. 
It probably originated, like several other small pictures of 
religious subjects with which we shall discuss it presently, in 
the early days of the artist’s connection with Savonarola. 
One other Annunciation now in the Glasgow Museum, which 
is scarcely even cited as a school-work, is one of Sandro’s last 
paintings which, no matter how far from the paintings of his 
earlier times, yet deserve thorough consideration as they fully 
reveal the tragic end of Botticelli’s art. 

One allegorical picture of ancient significance still belongs 
to the later years of the great Medici and is conceived and 
executed quite in the manner of the Magnifico. This is the 
*Calumny of Apelles,’ one of the most admired paintings in the 
Uffizi Gallery. The artist gave the picture to an intimate 
friend, Antonio Segni, a Florentine patrician well versed in 
the humanities, who was born in 1460 and was also an intimate 
friend of Leonardo da Vinci. The motive is copied figure by 
figure almost exactly from Lucian’s description of a painting 
by Apelles. Sandro must have got to know Lucian in an 
Italian translation, though at that time it could only have 

8 113 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


been accessible to him in manuscript. His attention may 
also have been drawn to the theme through Leon Battista 
Alberti, but his representation is truer to Lucian’s than to 
Alberti’s description. On a raised seat in a splendid hall the 
unjust judge is enthroned and beside him two young women, 
‘Ignorance,’ and ‘Suspicion,’ are talking passionately into his 
long ass’s ears. Before him stands the accuser ‘ Envy,’ in a 
fantastic black costume, maliciously pressing his accusations 
against the unfortunate victim, an almost naked youth whom 
‘Calumny ’ is dragging along the ground to the judge by the 
hair. ‘Calumny,’ a richly dressed maiden, is being adorned 
by two other women, ° Hypocrisy and ‘ Deceit.’ Behind this 
group comes ‘ Remorse,’ an old woman in dark ragged clothes, 
covering her head in shame and turning sadly towards ° Truth,’ 
who, naked and with flowing hair, gazes upwards, whither she 
points with her raised right hand. 

The figures are slender, almost lean, their movements are 
hasty and cause their garments to flutter and billow out restlessly 
or to form angular folds, a characteristic sign of the late date 
of the picture. This period is also indicated by the rich natural 
eolours and their cool tones, which, however, produce a 
harmonious impression. Its unique effect is due to the decora- 
tion of the hall with numerous gilded marble reliefs, and to 
the outlook over the pale green sea with the blue sky above it, 
on to which the double pillared hall opens. Through the extra- 
ordinarily careful finish and perfect preservation of the picture, 
the effect of its great originality, its rich and splendid range 
of colours, and its clearness is greatly heightened. Though it 
is true in general and confirmed by so classic a witness as 
Leonardo that Sandro was not interested in the painting of 
landscapes, and therefore scarcely gave them any importance 
in his pictures, still, on occasion he knows how to use them 
very cleverly for decorative purposes. Even here in the view 
out to sea he does not produce an effect of seascape, but rather 

114 


eit Ll rN THE “EIGHTIES 


sea and sky are to him the means of giving to his rich colours 
and unrestful architecture a strong quiet background and 
artistic unity. 

Both in the choice of this scene of reproach, a subject re- 
presented by a succession of Italian artists, some of them noted, 
from the end of the fifteenth to the middle of the sixteenth 
centuries, as well as in the plastic decoration of this stately 
hall, Botticelli gave the most enthusiastic expression to his 
delight in ancient myths. Nevertheless, amongst dozens of 
ancient themes, only very exceptionally does he give us actual 
copies of antique prototypes though he gives free rein to his love 
of developing in his own manner motives out of the old classics 
and ancient remains, and with these he combines scenes from 
Roman history, in a few instances even Biblical and ecclesiastical 
representations. In the relief on the plinth under the judge 
representing a family of centaurs, we recognise the copy of a 
picture by Zeuxis, described by Lucian. The statues in the 
niches by which the walls and pillars are broken up are only 
faintly reminiscent of ancient or contemporary Italian plastic 
art—both were already equally important and classic to Botti- 
celli—but the reliefs, with which plinth, cornices, and the arches 
of the vaulted roof are entirely covered, present all sorts of 
mythological and allegorical figures of the ancient world: 
satyrs and nymphs, cupids, centaurs, representations of Apollo 
and Daphne, and so on, and amongst them even Biblical heroes 
like Judith, painted in cheerful confusion and almost playfully 
just as he thought of them and as it pleased him to depict or 
to transform them. They were only thought of and treated 
as decoration, but to us they are of special interest because they 
show that the artist, who created this picture according to 
his own impulse and to satisfy his own artistic need, was, not 
long before Savonarola’s appearance in Florence, still living 
entirely in the humanistic ideas of the Medici, still quite under 
their influence, and that he took the greatest delight in the 

115 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


artistic embodiment of these ideas unhampered by his strict 
religious and even churchy spirit and his mystic Dante-ridden 
views. After all did not the Italian Neo-Platonists think to 
have reconciled Plato’s teaching with the Christian faith ? 


116 


CHAPTER VII 


BOTTICELLI AND HIS ART IN THE LAST YEARS OF LORENZO 
DE’ MEDICI AND UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SAVONAROLA 


who were leaders of the Italian culture of the day, and 

some of whom guided the destinies of Italy over a period 
of many years. He had executed his chief works for Pope 
Sixtus IV, for the Medici family and their friends, and had 
probably become personally acquainted with some of them. 
But after Lorenzo’s death on the 8th of April, 1492, the 
Dominican monk Fra Girolamo Savonarola, Prior of the Mon- 
astery of San Marco, which the Medici had specially sup- 
ported and made a focus of their encouragement of art and science, 
showed the Florentines the obverse of this brilliant efflorescence 
of culture; he exposed the hollowness and insincerity of their 
Humanism; from the face of ecclesiastical hypocrisy he tore 
the mask which concealed loose living and often even unbridled 
licence ; year after year with the zeal of a fanatic he proclaimed 
from the pulpit the judgment of God and depicted it in the 
most terrible colours; and these sermons of the Prior moved 
Botticelli deeply, and even exercised a profound influence on 
his art. In one of his paintings, the ‘ Adoration of the Child ’ 
of the year 1500, he confesses himself a cordial supporter of 
Savonarola, and Vasari, like the other old biographers, names 
him as one of Savonarola’s closest friends, the Piagnoni (or 
Mourning Women). It has therefore been inferred that the 


artist had from the first attached himself to the monk; that he 
117 


NROM the first, Botticelli had practised his art for patrons 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


had himself condemned those of his pictures which represented 
‘pagan’ subjects, and with his own hands consigned to the 
flames those depicting nude figures when, on Shrove Tuesday in 
the years 1497 and 1498, the monk sent out the children of 
Florence to collect ‘ vanities ’ of every kind, including pictures 
and statues of nude figures; and that he finally renounced his 
art altogether, and ended his days in poverty and partly para- 
lysed. Sandro had been living with his brother Simone since 
the latter’s return from Naples shortly before 1494, and at the 
time in question they had together just acquired the villa out- 
side the San Frediano Gate. The discovery of a manuscript 
in which Simone records in detail his reminiscences of the fate of 
Savonarola, and declares himself an enthusiastic adherent of the 
monk, naturally tended to confirm the view that the artist 
had in like manner championed Savonarola’s cause. But a 
more exact study of this manuscript and its comparison with 
various records relating to Sandro’s life during these years give 
a substantially different picture. 

The villa, which the artist purchased jointly with Simone 
on April 19, 1494, at the price of 155 gold ducats, the revenues 
he states he derived from it, and the taxes he paid in respect 
of them in subsequent years, together with the fact that he 
remained in possession of it till his death, prove that the artist 
spent the last years of his life in circumstances which, though 
not wealthy, were by no means poverty-stricken. And while 
the documentary evidence is intrinsically insignificant enough, 
it is definitely inconsistent with the conclusion that Botticelli 
joined the supporters of Savonarola from the beginning. After 
the death of Lorenzo il Magnifico the artist still continued to 
do most of his work for the Medici family. On May 18, 1491, 
he was, through the good offices of Lorenzo il Magnifico, commis- 
sioned, jointly with Domenico Ghirlandajo and a couple of 
workers in mosaic, to decorate the Zenobius Chapel in the Cathe- 
dral with mosaics. And after Lorenzo’s death on April 8, 1492, 

118 | 


BOTTICELLI AND HIS ART 


this work was carried on at the instigation of his son Piero; 
payments continued to be made till the end of 1492. The 
work then, however, came to a standstill, and, though proceeded 
with from time to time, was never finished. Even what had been 
actually accomplished was subsequently destroyed, so that 
nothing is now known to us of Sandro’s share init. It was also 
just at this period, when the circumstances of the time made 
larger commissions impossible, that Sandro executed the Dante 
illustrations for his old patron, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco. His 
relations continued so intimate with Lorenzo Popolano (the 
name adopted by this noble Medici after the Revolution) and 
with his brother Giovanni, that Michelangelo, when writing to 
Lorenzo from Rome in 1496, sent the letter to Botticelli to be 
forwarded by him. In July, 1497, he executed, together with 
other artists, some fresco decorations for Lorenzo’s brother in 
the Villa Castello, for which he received 52 lire. 

Immediately afterwards Lorenzo Tornabuoni and Giacomo 
Pucci, two patrons of Sandro’s who had given him a good deal 
of work, were executed on a charge of siding with the Medici, 
an incident which cannot have prejudiced the artist in favour 
of Savonarola’s rule. While, moreover, his brother Simone, 
in his reminiscences of the last years of Savonarola beginning 
directly after 1494, displays the liveliest interest in current 
events, he gives us no indication that his brother also took 
part in them. The petition presented to Pope Alexander in 
1497 by several hundred citizens of Florence, praying him to 
revoke the bill of excommunication against Savonarola, is 
signed by Simone but not by his brother; and the latter re- 
mains quietly in Florence, when his brother takes flight to 
Bologna after Savonarola’s imprisonment. But when, after 
the execution of his associates, Lorenzo Popolano fled to Lyons, 
and his brother Giovanni and Caterina Riario-Sforza, the ener- 
getic wife he had recently married, openly clamoured for the 
arrest and execution of Savonarola, the artist’s attitude seems 

119 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


to have altered completely in favour of the monk. To take any 
public part in the disturbances, which culminated in Fra Giro- 
lamo being arrested and, on May 22, 1498, burnt at the stake 
together with two of his brother Dominicans, was as repugnant 
to Sandro’s retiring disposition as previously the monk’s 
political activity must have been, the * Kingdom of Christ ’ 
which he set up in the Palazzo Vecchio, and which he administered 
in person. But when at last Sandro realised the terrible cor- 
ruption of the Papal Court under Alexander Borgia and his 
son Cesare, the persecution and martyrdom of Savonarola 
made him as enthusiastic an adherent as his strictly orthodox 
and even superstitious brother Simone had been from the first. 
When Lorenzo Popolano came back to Florence, Sandro had, as 
far as we know, nothing further to do with him; his great 
work for Lorenzo, the Dante illustrations, he left unfinished, 
and. his studio was—as Simone tells us in detail—for a consider- 
able time the meeting-place of the Piagnoni, the followers of 
the unhappy monk. But that, however violent their language, 
their proceedings were pretty peaceable, is proved by the fact 
that Doffo Spini, the leader of the Compagnacci or Arrabiati, 
who were the pledged opponents of Savonarola, also appeared 
at these meetings, and, as Simone tells, took an active part in 
their discussions. 

All these circumstances, therefore, and especially the tes- 
timony of his own brother, support the conclusion that Sandro 
took no active part whatever in the disturbances which con- 
vulsed Florence after the exile of the Medici and the accession 
to power of Savonarola in 1494; but Sandro was sorely grieved 
at the monk’s tragic end, as he had obviously been deeply moved 
from the first by his personality and by his teaching and preach- 
ing: so deeply, that his art was most strongly influenced and 
even transformed in consequence, and his creative power un- 
fortunately paralysed. In his sermons, Savonarola makes re- 
peated and very vigorous appeals to the artists; not because of 

120 


poe. UGERELLL AND HIS. ART 


his own affection for art, for he did not care for it at all, but from 
educational considerations, because he saw how deeply art 
had permeated the people, what an extraordinary influence it 
exercised in Florence on every aspect of life. When he attacked 
crude naturalism in art, the genre style of miniature painting, 
and the excessive use of portraiture even in biblical composi- 
tions, he was met half-way by the school of young artists who 
were once more aiming at simplification, at large, more universal 
forms, and spiritualisation of expression. They therefore ac- 
quiesced in other demands of the ascetic preacher which assuredly 
were less in harmony with their inmost feelings: the con- 
demnation of every representation of the nude, the rejection 
of all ° heathen ’ subjects, the demand that they were to confine 
themselves to ecclesiastical representations, above all to those 
chosen from the life of Christ and from the Passion. 
Repeated over and over again with brilliant eloquence 
and fanatical zeal, such an appeal to the true vocation of the 
artist, to use his art for edification and improvement, * to paint 
the soul, whose expression might make even the ugliest body 
appear beautiful,’ could secure contrite acceptance and en- 
thusiastic compliance from many artists. A few, like Ambrogio 
della Robbia and later Baccio della Porta, themselves joined the 
Order of Savonarola; others, like Lorenzo di Credi, Simone Polla- 
juolo, Baccio da Montelupo, and even Michelangelo, followed him 
and his teaching, but not one of them with greater enthusiasm 
and zeal than Botticelli. His own strictly orthodox, mystical 
temperament, which appears already in his earlier works and 
which had since his return from Rome become more and more 
prominent, had already caused him to develop along similar 
lines in his altar-pieces of the ’eighties; the preacher-monk’s 
words, his holy life, his fiery zeal, the enthusiasm he aroused 
among all classes in Florence, including the most intimate human- 
istic friends of Lorenzo il Magnifico, even such as Pico della 
Mirandola and Angelo Poliziano, could not fail to move deeply 
121 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


and to carry away so sensitive and devout a spirit as Botticelli’s. 
And when we read of Savonarola calling upon the artists to 
paint hell and paradise, may we not infer some direct associa- 
tion between the Frate and Botticelli, who was just at that time 
illustrating Dante’s Divine Comedy, and assume that in artistic 
questions Sandro eventually exercised an influence on the 
preacher ? This, however, only as far as it accorded with the 
latter’s own way of thinking. In his youth he had responded 
to the call to life through classical antiquity and humanism ; 
but the medieval feeling, the mysticism that was deeply rooted 
in him, gained ground steadily, till at length Savonarola drew 
him quite away from life and made him in his art the interpreter 
of the monk’s dogmatic views. 

Luther gained in Lucas Cranach an enthusiastic ciserale 
and comrade-in-arms for the cause of the Reformation, in- 
duced him to devote himself to the artistic exposition and dis- 
semination of Luther’s doctrines, and thereby diverted him 
more and more from true art. In similar fashion the Italian 
reformer a generation earlier found in Botticelli an equally staunch 
protagonist. Savonarola’s death filled Botticelli with such 
fanatical enthusiasm that he accepted even his ascetic precepts 
as God-given laws and practised them accordingly. In the 
artist’s latest works we can clearly perceive how he gradually 
assimilated these precepts of the prophet, how their influence 
transformed his art more and more, and how at length they seem 
to have killed even the impulse to artistic activity. The period 
between the appearance of Savonarola in Florence and Botticelli’s 
death is nearly as long as that covered by the whole of the artist’s 
earlier activity, so far as documentary evidence extends: and 
how scanty are the productions of this later period, how far 
inferior to all his earlier works! 

We saw that Sandro continued to work for the Medici fo 
some years after the death of his great patron Lorenzo, a cir- 
cumstance in itself sufficient to keep him aloof from any overt 

122 


mere tGRhLLIoC AND: HIS’ ART 


acts hostile to them. Nevertheless, during these very years 
the influence of Savonarola’s doctrines gradually becomes ap- 
parent in his pictures. After the great altar-piece of the Corona- 
tion of the Virgin for San Marco, and the Annunciation for 
Santa Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi, both of which were painted — 
about 1490, we do not hear of any other altar pictures being 
commissioned from the artist, even though we are justified in 
attributing to this late period a couple of similar works, in which, 
however, his pupils had some share. It would seem that the 
output of Sandro’s studio in the first half of the ’nineties in- 
cluded only small devotional pictures, decorative panels for 
insertion in wainscoting and chests, and designs for a variety of 
arts and crafts. 

Sandro’s earliest biographer, the Anonimo Gaddiano, men- 
tions that he painted ‘a large number of charming little pic- 
tures.’ Among his very earliest paintings we come upon two 
such pictures, small and delicately executed representations 
from the story of Judith. But none are assignable to the ’seven- 
ties nor till the end of the ’eighties, apart from the sketchy pre- 
dellas of two altar-pieces. Only in the last years of Lorenzo 
do they reappear, and from that time forward they become 
more frequent. The earliest and most charming of these small 
pictures is the Madonna in the Poldi-Pezzoli Collection at Milan, 
a little gem by reason of its intimate feeling, rich harmonious 
colouring and delicate workmanship. These qualities are ren- 
dered specially conspicuous by the admirable preservation of 
the picture and by its peculiar old frame; this consists of a 
broad lac-red roll with a narrow gold groove next the picture, 
and adds greatly to the effectiveness of the colour scheme. The 
vividness of conception, the rich accessories and the attractive 
expression make this almost a genre picture such as we rarely 
find in Sandro’s work, although even here the tragic death is 
already foreshadowed by the crown of thorns and the nails 
which the Child holds in His hands as though playing with them. 

123 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


The Mother, depicted as quite young, is interrupted while read- 
ing a devotional book which lies open before her, by the Child 
on her lap, who looks inquiringly up at His Mother, as though 
asking for an explanation of some passage in the book. In a 
wall-cupboard by her side lie another book and a plain round 
chip box; in front of them there stands on a book a majolica 
bowl containing fruit and ornamented with peacock butterflies, 
the only case I am acquainted with in which this particularly 
attractive pattern of early Florentine majolica painting is re- 
presented in a picture. 

Milan possesses a second picture of the Madonna, scarcely any 
larger, and in various respects very peculiar; but the unrestful 
treatment of the folds and the types indicate that it must be 
several years later in date than the Poldi-Pezzoli picture. In 
the foreground of the circular panel Mary is kneeling on a green 
lawn, squirting milk towards the Child Whom an angel is leading 
up to her: the subject of this “Madonna del Latte’ is very rare 
in early art, but is none the less met with occasionally up to the 
time of Rubens in the seventeenth century. Above Mary there 
stretches a tent-like canopy, drawn back on either side by an 
angel. At the back, above a stone balustrade with a seat in 
front of it, we have a view of the distant landscape; in the 
foreground, a bunch of flowers stands in a splendid crystal vase 
with golden handles fashioned like serpents. 

With more harmony and unity in its composition, but less 
rich in colouring, is a quite small picture, expressly mentioned 
already by the Anonimo, the *‘ Last Communion of St. Jerome.’ 
This has been transferred from the Capponi Collection to the 
Metropolitan Museum in New York. The existence of two 
good and faithful school reproductions, one in the Palazzo 
Balbi at Genoa and the other formerly in Sir William Abdy’s 
collection in Paris but now in a private American collection, 
proves that this picture must have found particular favour with 
Botticelli’s contemporaries, by reason of its intimate feeling, 

124 


BOTTICELLI AND HIS ART 


precise execution, and probably also on account of its peculiar 
subject, which would be very congenial to the age of Savonarola. 

Another small picture similar in character, but to judge by 
the less reposeful delineation of the folds somewhat later in 
date, is the St. Augustine in the Uffizi Gallery, where this painting 
was formerly considered to be the work of Fra Filippo; again 
almost like a genre picture in conception and effect, and rendered 
particularly attractive by its neat workmanship and its rich 
colouring with the touches of gold applied to the surface. The 
Father of the Church is sitting in his cell, a vaulted stone building 
little more than a yard broad, a folding table with two tall 
bronze legs is set up before him, and he is very busy writing, 
so busy that like a true scholar hurrying through his work he 
has swept notes that are done with and worn-out goose-quills 
off the table on to the ground in front of him. The lines of the 
cell are carried back with accurate perspective, as is the rule in 
Sandro’s pictures of this late period ; but the figure has so little 
elbow-room that it seems quite cramped in the confined space. 
The rich plastic ornamentation, consisting of a Madonna in the 
semicircular lunette at the back of the cell, and two heads in 
profile on either side in front, are as characteristic as the build- 
ings which the artist inserts into these late pictures of his. To 
the same period, about the year 1494, belongs a small mutilated 
picture which figured in the Kaufmann Sale at Berlin in 1917, 
and represents Judith leaving the tent with the head of Holo- 
fernes. The strong colours, dominated by a vivid yellow, 
indicate as clearly as the almost affected movement and the 
billowing folds that a late date must be assigned to this little 
panel. This heroine’s coarse head has none of the refined, 
almost dainty aspect and visionary expression of the Judith in 
the picture in the Uffizi, painted some twenty-five years earlier. 
Here we are shown the heroine of the Jewish people, who seems 
to have acted as executioner alone and without a maid; and 
this finds expression also in her features and figure. Closely 

125 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


related to these small vertical pictures is the little horizontal 
panel of the ‘Annunciation, which passed from the Barberini 
Gallery to O. Huldschinsky’s collection in Berlin. Morelli has 
disputed its attribution to Botticelli, and therefore Horne, who 
has unreservedly accepted the above-mentioned little pictures 
of late date, proposed to regard this, the finest of them, as no 
more than a school-work. But all the evidence goes to show 
that it is from Botticelli’s own hand, executed at the beginning of 
the ’nineties. The dignified stone architecture with its simple 
lines, typical of the late Renaissance period which was then just 
beginning, the way in which its perspective is carried far into 
the background, the use of the Corinthian capital as the sole 
ornamentation, the throne-like seat with the bronze praying- 
stool before it (almost exactly like the one in the Uffizi Annun- 
ciation) at which Mary is kneeling, even the boxes, books and 
other trifles standing on the top edge of the seat—all these 
features are just as characteristic of Sandro’s work shortly 
after 1490 as are the charming fair-haired figures, the soft folds 
of their rich dresses, the fine draughtsmanship, and the clear 
bright colouring. In the great ‘ Annunciation’ from Santa Maria 
Maddalena dei Pazzi the angel has already advanced into the 
Virgin’s chamber; here he stops timidly in the ante-room 
and, sinking to his knees, only ventures to announce the tidings 
of salvation to Mary through the narrow doorway. In general 
arrangement as in detail, in the form and movement of the 
figures and in their expression, this picture possesses the charm 
of the paintings of the Master’s greatest period. The richness 
with which the rooms are furnished and the beautiful dresses 
prove that the picture was painted before Savonarola acquired 
a decisive influence over Sandro. 

Only twelve or fifteen years ago there appeared in a sale- 
room at Florence four small predella pieces with scenes from 
the life of St. Mary Magdalene, shortly afterwards transferred 
to the John G. Johnson Collection (now a museum in Phila- 

126 


BOTLTICELLI AND ‘HIS ART 


delphia). In the catalogue of this collection B. Berenson has 
declared them to be the work of Botticelli’s early period and has 
in particular cited the two Adorations in the National Gallery 
as confirmation of this conclusion as to their date. According 
to the date which we assign to these Adorations, the pictures in 
question must have been painted before 1470, on Berenson’s 
view about 1480. But evidence against so early a date is 
afforded by the architecture with its columns, portals and capitals 
in the late Renaissance style then coming in, which we found in 
the small pictures just discussed and which appear also in the 
large so-called cassone pictures with the life of St. Zenobius, 
which must be assigned to about the same date and which we 
shall come to in a moment. Moreover, the highly developed 
feeling for movement and expression as well as the rich folds 
indicate that these pictures belong to the ’nineties. It must be 
admitted that in treatment these small predellas, the large panel 
corresponding to which is not extant, differ essentially from 
the small panels already mentioned, which are executed with 
exceptional care. But this sketchy treatment, especially the 
way in which the figures are lightly touched in, is characteristic 
of most fifteenth-century predellas, and above all of Botticelli’s 
small predella pieces which are still extant. Berenson, although 
he finally assigns these pictures to Botticelli, has rightly drawn 
attention to their affinity with the exquisite panels of the story 
of Esther in Chantilly, Florence and Vienna; these are master- 
pieces of Botticelli’s pupil Filippino, for whom Berenson errone- 
ously substitutes a separate unnamed master whom he calls 
“Amico di Sandro.’ The pictures under discussion portray 
respectively a sermon by Christ with Mary Magdalene in the 
audience, the feast at the house of Levi with Mary Magdalene 
at the Saviour’s Feet, the Noli-me-tangere, and the last com- 
munion and ascension of the saint. Unpretentious though 
they be, these compositions are as original, as freshly told, 
rendered with as much ease and ingenuity, as they are delicate 
127 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


in the blended harmony of colour which speaks Sandro’s lan- 
guage in the plainest fashion. The lack of any adornment, 
even of any embellishment of the outlines of the severe, bare 
architecture, proves that these pictures were painted under 
the influence of Savonarola, and probably in the last years of 
the century. Another feature which frequently recurs in late 
pictures and therefore points to the same conclusion is the 
formation of the basaltic rocks, in front of which the saint’s 
ascension to heaven is represented as a vision appearing to 
the donor bowed in prayer. 

Markedly different from the small finished pictures we have 
been discussing, and still more so from these colour sketches, 
are a number of pictures intended as decorations for wall-panel- 
ling, which are nevertheless genuine works of Sandro’s belonging 
to this late period, although no doubt pupils were largely con- 
cerned in their execution. In May, 1491, as we have seen, Botti- 
celli, in common with other artists, was commissioned by Lorenzo 
il Magnifico to decorate the Zenobius Chapel in the Cathedral 
with representations in mosaic from the life of the saint. This 
enterprise was eventually left unfinished after being repeatedly 
interrupted by the troubles of the time. Three large panel 
pictures, however, in the Dresden Gallery and the Mond Collec- 
tion in London, have come down to us, containing representa- 
tions, rich in figures, of miracles performed by the patron saint 
of Florence. It is a very probable assumption that the composi- 
tions which Sandro intended to be executed in mosaic have 
been more or less faithfully preserved in these large panels. 
It is, on the other hand, difficult to believe, as Horne supposes, 
that they were executed more than ten years later, the two 
smaller ones not till about 1505. Another pair of fairly large 
panels, one in the gallery at Bergamo representing scenes from 
the life of Virginia, the other in the Gardner Collection at Boston 
with similar scenes from the life of Lucretia, correspond so 
closely with these three panels in conception, design and work- 

128 


Perri CREEL AND HIS ‘ART 


manship, that they must have been executed in Sandro’s studio 
at about the same time. Vasari’s testimony makes their ascrip- 
tion to Sandro virtually certain. According to him, both panels 
formed part of the mural decoration which Botticelli and 
Piero di Cosimo carried out about 1500 in the house of Gio- 
vanni Vespucci, or more probably, says Horne, for his father 
Guidantonio. These and similar panels are usually described 
as cassone fillings, but that was by no means always their func- 
tion. These panels, in particular, are much too large for such 
a purpose; they were rather intended for insertion in the wains- 
coting, like the panels with scenes from the life of St. Zeno- 
bius. Other similar pictures were placed at the head or foot 
of the broad state beds of the Renaissance. 

The three panels depicting the miracles of St. Zenobius 
and also the two larger panels of the martyrdom of the Roman 
maidens, Lucretia and Virginia respectively, tell their stories 
in the same way as the pictures of Florentine cassone painters ; 
they crowd the various incidents into a single panel, and secure 
unity of composition by setting all the scenes against a common 
architectural background. Notably in the two large scenes 
taken from Roman history, the architecture has become a 
leading feature and is even designed and executed with a certain 
grandeur. In the Lucretia panel, as in one of the Roman frescoes, — 
Sandro has closed in the composition with a free, almost baroque 
version of the triumphal arch of Titus, in much the same way 
as he had already used it inthe cassone of the marriage of Gian- 
nozzo Pucci with Lucretia Bini in 1483. In subordinating the 
small figures to the grand, rich architecture Botticelli is here 
following closely the example of the Florentine mosaic workers 
of the Quattrocento, who habitually crowded their inlaid fillings 
of choir-stalls, cupboards andso on with just this type of archi- 
tectural view, exaggerated in perspective and often fantastic. 
The small figures in these panels are unskilful in their propor- 
tions and in their hasty movements, the draping of the showy 

9 129 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


costumes is angular and unpleasing. Even if the design and 
draughtsmanship are Sandro’s own, the frigid, uninspired exe- 
cution can only be the work of pupils. 

These panels are in the main painted quite in accordance 
with the stern decrees of Savonarola ; in two of them Botticelli 
harks back to‘classical antiquity, in this case the early history 
of Rome; but this involved ‘no infraction of the monk’s re- 
strictions on art, for their subjects are highly edifying, and, 
moreover, exemplify how the tyrants were overthrown and a 
republic introduced in Rome. 


Savonarola’s martyrdom was temporarily followed in Florence 
by a period of calm, or rather stupefaction. The desire to 
embellish churches and chapels, particularly with altar-pieces, 
now asserted itself once more after being starved for years. 
Florence still possesses at the present day a number of altar- 
pieces and plastic groups which date from the very beginning © 
of the sixteenth century, and others have found their way into 
foreign museums. Botticelli, too, was again invited at this 
time to execute large pictures with Biblical subjects. Only one 
of them is completely authenticated and, very exceptionally, by 
an inscription in the artist’s own hand. Another unusual 
feature is that the subject, the Adoration of the Child, is portrayed 
in small figures witha precision of detail like that of a miniature. 
Horne dismisses as school-works all the anomalous pictures 
with large figures, which were formerly accepted almost with- 
out dispute as late works of Sandro’s, and from their general 
character must belong to this period and have hitherto been 
ascribed to it ; but he omits to produce proof of his contention. 
It is indeed probable, and is corroborated by some documentary 
evidence as to the employment of pupils by the masters of 
that period, that these last altar-pieces of Sandro’s, like the 
contemporary decorations for wainscoting or furniture which 
have already been discussed, were executed to a material extent 

130 


BOTTICELLI AND HIS ART 


with the help of pupils. At present the records throw no 
light whatever on this problem, nor provide an answer to the 
general question how far pupils were concerned in the produc- 
tion of Sandro’s larger works; we have therefore practically 
to fall back on qualitative appreciation, always more or less a 
matter of subjective impression. 

The Virgin and Child in the Palazzo Pitti at Florence seems 
to me a typical altar-piece of this period; the Virgin is holding 
the Child down towards the boy St. John, who is standing beside 
her, for him to embrace. The wistfulness in expression and atti- 
tude, which is of course a characteristic peculiarity of nearly all 
Botticelli’s pictures of the Madonna, has here become melancholy 
and almost apathy. The figures are clothed in heavy drapery 
with deep, angular folds without any ornament, and strong 
colours with little shading add to the mournful, gloomy impression. 
of the picture ; but both the types and the colours, the draw- 
ing and treatment, are thoroughly typical of the Master him- 
self, and do not reveal the anomalous features which mark the 
works of Sandro’s various pupils and successors. Very similar 
in character is the great ‘ Rest on the Flight into Egypt,’ in 
the possession of the Musée André in Paris. 

Two similar works of the same period and the same type 
are the two representatives of the Mourning for Christ, one in 
the Poldi-Pezzoli Collection at Milan, the other in the Pinakothek 
at Munich. Savonarola had particularly urged the artists to 
choose subjects from the Passion of Christ. Sandro had never 
attempted one before; perhaps he himself felt that vivid, 
dramatic animation was not the peculiar province of his genius. 
At Savonarola’s bidding, and because his teaching and the 
religious feeling of the day required it, Botticelli too now 
repeatedly accepted commissions for representations of the 
Mourning for the Body of Christ, such as were executed about 
this time by nearly all the eminent painters and sculptors of 
Florence. But what Pietro Perugino in his Pieta in the Florence 

131 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Academy, what, above all, Michelangelo in his marble Pieta in 
St. Peter’s, were able to express, Sandro in these pictures of his 
has not achieved. Of the medium-sized vertical panel in the 
Poldi-Pezzoli Collection a considerably smaller but otherwise 
identical school copy figured in the Bourgeois auction at Cologne 
in 1904: here the dead body of the Lord rests on the lap of Mary, 
who is sinking back unconscious; around them are the mourn- 
ing disciples, with Joseph of Arimathea towering above them 
at the back. The little group of figures paralysed with grief is 
almost lost to view in the superabundance of loose and sack- 
like draperies. In the types, in the youthful figure of the 
beardless Christ, in the plain and simple costumes, in the arti- 
ficial construction, in the representation of the empty space in 
front of the tomb, the artist closely follows the detailed descrip- 
tions of the scenein the sermons which Fra Girolamo delivered 
to crowded audiences in Holy Week; but of the effect which 
his inspired eloquence wrought upon his hearers, including the 
artists among them, how—as Pico della Mirandola puts it— 
he now convulsed them with sobs, now made their hair stand 
on end—of all this Sandro has succeeded in conveying nothing, 
either in this picture or in the larger, much more important 
panel in the Munich Pinakothek. | 

In this horizontal panel the group is much better com- 
posed : the individual figures, increased in number by the addition 
of Saints Peter, Paul and Jerome, are very skilfully thrown into 
relief, and also differentiated in costume; but here, too, a chill, — 
hopeless pain benumbs all the figures, the lack of spontaneity 
and inordinate symmetry in the arrangement, the uniformity 
of types and expression, fail to bring the scene home to us and 
make us feel the full tragedy of this terrible drama. Neverthe- 
less, the admirable draughtsmanship and sympathetic execution, 
the characteristically rich colouring which, despite the diversity 
of tints, is not garish but harmonious and subdued in tone, 
entitle this admirably preserved painting to be accepted as a 

132 


Ber riCELLI AND HIS ART 


thoroughly authentic work of Sandro’s, and probably entirely 
from his own hand; among the pictures which the artist 
painted according to Savonarola’s regulations it deserves to rank 
as the masterpiece. It is in all respects so typical of this, the 
Master’s latest period, that it is impossible to understand how 
both Morelli and Horne could dispute its being Sandro’s work. 
Vasari mentions a Pieta by Botticelli with small figures in 
Sta. Maria Maggiore at Florence ; this cannot refer to the Munich 
picture with its life-size figures, but probably the small picture 
in Milan is meant, which was manifestly painted still later. 
The great altar-piece of the ° Descent of the Holy Ghost’ in the 
Cook Gallery at Richmond is very similar in construction and 
feeling, and in its compliance with the formulas of Savonarola ; 
it is assuredly one of the last compositions of the now ageing 
Master. In the regularity of its arrangement, the lack of 
expression in the heads, the absence of any finer feeling in draw- 
ing and drapery, this picture, in contrast to the Munich Pieta, 
reveals no trace of the Master’s hand in its execution. To this 
latest period also belongs the design for the very large engraving 
of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, of which one copy, 
printed from two plates, is still extant in the Uffizi Gallery. 
The structure is imposing and extremely clear. The choir 
of angels who are grouped round Mary in a double circle, prais- 
ing her with song and music, is calm and heavenly in its peace, 
like the dance of angels in the Adoration of the year 1500; the 
Apostles standing about the grave are very animated, and their 
shaggy beards and long hair make them look rather like savages, 
an effect probably enhanced by the personal equation of the 
skilful engraver. In the distance we get a view of Rome as 
it then was, in which the ancient buildings are reproduced 
with a fidelity exceptional in Sandro’s work. Vasari mentions 
yet another engraving which appeared in 1497 under the same 
title. Unfortunately no print of this engraving has come down 


to us. 
133 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


We have already drawn attention several times to one of 
the most remarkable among the artist’s pictures of this late 
period, and the only one of his paintings that is signed and 
dated. This is the ‘ Adoration of the Child’ now in the London 
National Gallery. It reveals his dependence on the doctrines 
and maxims of Fra Girolamo almost more plainly but also 
more attractively than any other, and at the same time gives 
the clearest and most emphatic expression to his enthusiastic 
devotion to the martyr. The picture is one of the few painted 
on canvas, and along the upper edge of it there runs an inscrip- 
tion in neat capital letters, which some learned friend of Sandro’s 
had translated into Greek. In English it runs as follows: 
* This picture was painted by me, Alessandro, at the end of the 
year 1500 during the troubles of Italy, at the half time after 
the time which was prophesied in the 11th chapter of St. John 
the Evangelist, and the second woe of the Apocalypse, and 
when Satan shall be loosed on the earth for three and a half 
years, but then he shall be enchained in the twelfth woe, and 
we shall see him trodden underfoot as in this picture.’ This 
inscription is partially defaced, but Sir Sidney Colvin has suc- 
cessfully completed and interpreted it. The mystical symbolism 
of the language shows how Sandro had studied even the most 
obscure chapters of the Bible, and notably of the Book of 
Revelation, how deeply he felt the misfortunes of Italy and the 
murder of Fra Girolamo, and how the martyrdom of Fra Girolamo 
and his two brother monks seemed to him a fulfilment of the 
prophecy made in the eleventh chapter of the Apocalypse. 

We can understand that the artist should in this picture 
observe with special strictness all the regulations laid down 
by the reformer whom he so highly honoured. The naked 
Babe lies no longer in classical ruins but before a grotto of 
stone, under a roof humbly thatched with straw. The Mother 
is kneeling to Him in prayer, while Joseph crouches close by 
wrapped up in himself, as though he thought himself unworthy 

134 


Roe tiCKELE! AND HIS. ART 


to set eyes on the new-born Messiah. The ox and the ass, who 
in Sandro’s earlier pictures of the Adoration are barely visible 
in the background, here push their heads forward close up to 
the Babe. The three kings are approaching this group from 
the left, and two shepherds from the right, accompanied in 
each case by an angel and crowned with wreaths of olive; even 
the kings have no other adornment, neither crowns nor gifts. 
Right in the foreground are three pilgrims in dark robes ; they 
too wear chaplets of olive on their long hair, and each of them 
is being embraced by an angel. Im these figures there is no 
attempt at portraiture, but small labels fluttering above them 
and inscribed ‘ hominibus bone voluntatis ’ leave no room for 
doubt that they are intended to represent the three martyrs 
of Florence, Fra Girolamo, Domenico Buonvicini, and Sylvestre 
Maruffi. The little demons who are vanishing into the earth 
behind them indicate that they have cast off all earthly things, 
and that now the angels are leading them into heaven. Three 
angels are kneeling on the thatched roof and singing the ‘ gloria 
in excelsis ’ from a book of anthems, while above them in the 
radiant light of heaven a company of twelve young angels 
dance a roundelay, bearing in their hands long olive branches 
from which dainty crowns are suspended. 

The picture strikes a solemn, unearthly note; unearthly 
too, are the figures; human beings and angels alike are too 
slender, with hardly a touch of individualisation; kings and 
shepherds, martyrs and angels are almost alike in their youthful, 
ethereal figures, and in dress, too, are but slightly differentiated. 
Only the Holy Family, true Botticellian figures and twice the 
size of all the others, are depicted in natural human shape, 
that of the Boy being indeed of unusually childlike simplicity. 
The renunciation of all earthly things, the transition to a more 
beautiful world, which even on the material plane was already 
striven for, has perhaps never been so forcibly and yet so tenderly 
expressed ; yet the artist could not overcome the unnatural 

135 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


and morbid element in these aspirations, the decadent tendency 
of the age was no longer able to symbolise what two generations 
earlier Fra Angelico had expressed with such exquisite simplicity 
in his nimbs of saints and angels and in his representations of 
paradise. The deliberate and almost complete disregard of 
perspective, the neglect of proportions, the repudiation of all 
individual differentiation at a time when artistic knowledge 
was just reaching its highest development, is too far-fetched, 
too untrue to give us full satisfaction, and was equally incap- 
able of guiding the art of the age along new and healthy paths. 
But a decadent movement in art, such as English Pre-Raphaelitism 
also was, could not fail to regard this picture as a revelation; 
and its acquisition by the National Gallery was celebrated as 
a great event. Even Horne still speaks of the picture with 
enthusiasm. The dancing angels, in whom we still find almost 
undiminished that grace of which Sandro alone had so completely 
mastered the secret, constitute its chief charm. And yet how 
much fresher and simpler is the dance of the angels who scatter 
roses at the ‘Coronation of Mary’ in the Uffizi, which was 
painted just ten years earlier. 

This mystical ° Adoration’ is Sandro’s confession of orthodox 
piety as understood by Savonarola the Reformer. Another 
smaller picture is a symbolic representation of the misery which 
overtook Florence through the murder of Savonarola; this 
picture, hitherto almost ignored, is in its composition rightly 
ascribed by Horne to the master. It is also one of the few 
painted on canvas, and has unfortunately suffered severely 
from cleaning and restoration, with the result that at the Aynard 
Sale in Paris in December, 1913, it attracted little attention, 
although vouched for as authentic by Horne and Langton 
Douglas, and was sold to a dealer for 7,600 francs, a mere song. 
I cannot share Horne’s view that the picture was merely designed 
by Sandro, but executed by another hand; it is an improvisa- 
tion assuredly placed on the canvas by the Master himself without 

136 


BO? TICELLI AND’ HIS “ART 


much preparation. And the vision is so individual in the 
mystic symbolism of its conception, recording Sandro’s most 
intimate impressions of the sermons of the great martyr, that 
he would scarcely have entrusted the very simple execution 
to anyone else. The picture represents Christ crucified, with 
Magdalene prostrate in despair at the foot of the Cross, to which 
she is clinging. Beside her on the right stands an angel, who 
holds aloft a rod with which he is chastising a lion, which his 
left hand has seized by the hind leg. Behind him on the right 
tongues of flame are darting out of the ground and spreading 
dark clouds of smoke, in which appear swords and devils who 
hurl burning torches down upon the earth. On the left we see 
the city of Florence depicted in the distance, and above it the 
Almighty enthroned, with an open Bible in His left hand, and 
sending down shields of faith marked with the cross to ward 
off the devils. The symbolic meaning of the picture is easily 
interpreted. God is punishing sinful Florence for its sacri- 
legious murder of His reformer, and the city seeks to expiate 
it by penance and faith. The small lion that the angel is flog- 
ging is probably to be taken as the heraldic beast of Florence, 
and in the penitent Magdalene Sandro has intended to symbolise 
the repentant Florentine citizens. 

The crucified figure is treated with greater naturalism and 
wealth of detail than is usual in Botticelli’s pictures, especially 
those of his last period; but that is no sufficient reason for 
denying him all share in the execution of this painting. The 
angel and the Magdalene are both characteristic figures of 
Sandro’s; the folds of their costumes, lacking as they are in 
repose, are quite in keeping with the treatment of the folds 
in his other late paintings, and so are the colours. The blue 
of the penitent’s dress and the bright red of her cloak, the white 
costume of the angel, the violet tones in the clouds of smoke 
and the pink tints in the city roofs, together with the dark green 
hue of the meadow in the foreground, these are the artist’s 

137 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


typical colours in their normal combination, severely disfigured, 
alas, by merciless restoration. But the picture was never a 
pleasing work; even more than in the mystical ° Adoration of 
the Child ’ of 1500, Sandro here misconceives the natural limita- 
tions of art, seeking to present pictorially dogmatic and symbolic 
notions which can only be comprehended by the intellect and 
expressed in words. At the same time he lacks both the strong 
faculty of imagination and the power of dramatic conception 
and exposition with which Giotto and Durer were able to imbue 
them. In his worthy and pious endeavours to set forth in 
picture the doctrines of the revered martyr and thereby also 
to propagate them, Botticelli departs from the true province 
of art, much as Lucas Cranach, a kindred spirit despite all the 
differences between them, failed a generation later in a similar 
attempt to illustrate the teaching of the great German reformer, 
Luther. 

This picture of Christ crucified was probably intended by 
Sandro also as a memorial to the martyrdom of Savonarola > 
it was certainly produced after the latter’s death, but probably 
not much later, before the Adoration of 1500. To call this, 
as is often done, the ° Master’s swan-song,’ seems to me difficult 
to justify. Vasari tells us how after Fra Girolamo’s time Sandro 
fell into abject poverty and into decrepitude of both body and 
mind; but this is certainly incorrect. We have seen that in 
1494 he bought the villa at Bellosguardo jointly with his brother, 
and it remained their property till they died. Other documentary 
evidence relating to Botticelli’s last years is scanty, but, such 
as it is, contains no suggestion of bodily decay or financia 
need. On the contrary, Sandro still felt inclined to take part 
in festivities ; at any rate in the years 1503 to 1505 he repeatedly 
subscribed towards the decorations and festivals of the Florentine 
guild of artists. In January, 1505, we find him a member of the 
commission which was considering where Michelangelo’s David 
should be set up. At this time too, the ageing Master will have 

138 


BPudglLicELLI’ AND HIS ART 


been a keenly interested spectator of the rivalry between the 
two greatest of all Florentine artists; with the production of 
_the cartoons for the battle-scenes, the new age in Italy reaches 
its full strength. Botticelli’s feelings may have been peculiar, 
but envy was not among them, for this quality seems to have 
had no place in his disposition, and he was on as friendly terms 
with Leonardo as with Michelangelo. That he continued to be 
accounted one of the first painters in Italy and had by no means 
given up painting altogether we learn from an interesting letter 
which Francesco Malatesta, the agent of Isabella d’Este, addressed 
to his mistress in September 1502. In this letter he recom- 
mends her, in view of the absence and indolence of Perugino, 
to apply to Filippino or to Botticelli for the decoration of her 
camerino in the palace at Mantua. ‘I hear high praises ’—so 
writes Malatesta—‘ of Alexandro Botechiella, both as an excel- 
lent painter and as a man who works industriously and is not 
otherwise engaged (like Filippino and Perugino). I have had 
a talk with him; he says he would undertake the work at 
once and would gladly place himself at your Highness’ service.’ 
But the Marchesa’s choice fell on Perugino, with whom she 
had had previous negotiations in the matter of a picture for 
her camerino. 

A little later, about 1503, Ugolino Verino refers to the artist 
in his Latin poem ‘ De Illustratione Urbis Florentiz ’ in which 
he says of him: ‘ Nec Zeuxi inferior pictura Sander habetur.’ 
Some twenty years previously he had extolled him as a second 
Apelles. Such statements by contemporaries and even by 
artists leave little doubt that Sandro, who was only 65 years 
old when he died in 1510, continued to practise his art during 
his last years. We may assume that some of the pictures we 
have discussed above and classified as being painted under the 
influence of Savanarola, were not produced till the beginning 
of the Cinquecento. To this period we must in particular 
attribute the large ‘ Adoration of the Kings,’ rich in figures, 

139 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


which Sandro left unfinished, and which was unfortunately 
completed much later in makeshift fashion by various inferior 
hands. This picture, long banished to the store-room, is now 
to be found in the Botticelli room in the Uffizi. It is correctly 
attributed to the artist’s latest period by all the more recent 
critics of Botticelli. Only Horne alone incomprehensibly dis- 
cusses it together with the other pictures on the same subject 
dating from Sandro’s earlier years. The assumption that the 
man wearing a hat and eagerly pointing to the Holy Family 
close by is Savonarola and that his neighbour towards whom 
he is turning is Lorenzo il Magnifico is certainly mistaken. 
In his later period Sandro introduced no portraits whatever 
into his pictures; the monk had vigorously protested against 
any portraits being included in religious representations, besides 
which these two figures hardly bear even a faint resemblance 
to Lorenzo and Savonarola. 

The unfinished state in which the artist left this picture 
suggests that he died while engaged upon it, or possibly he may 
have laid it aside for years together. The hasty movement, 
the hard folds of the heavy drapery, the careless draughtsman- 
ship and the often unskilful proportions make it clear that the 
picture belongs to his last period, but even as a work of this 
epoch it presents many striking features. First and foremost, 
the throng of figures; the kings are arriving with an immense 
retinue, crowding forward on both sides and spreading far away 
into the distance. The fiery steeds that the grooms can scarcely 
control, the mighty rocks before which the Holy Family is 
receiving the kings beneath a small roof, and between which 
the crowded retinue is pressing forward, were probably painted 
under the influence of Leonardo’s unfinished ‘ Adoration.’ This 
incomplete picture of Sandro’s is very different from his *‘ Adora- 
tion’ of 1500 in which the marked peculiarities of style are 
manifestly deliberate ; on the other hand, it reveals close con- 
nection with the representations from the lives of Virginia 

140 


POLLICELLI' AND HIS ART 


and Lucretia, which he also painted about 1500 for Giovanni 
Vespucci. 

The * Annunciation ’ in the Glasgow Gallery resembles these 
panel pictures in its stately architecture; in discussing Sandro 
this picture is very seldom mentioned, and then only as the work 
of an imitator. It appears to me to be a thoroughly typical 
product of Sandro’s latest period. Of this the imposing archi- 
tecture, free from all ornamentation, is a sufficient indication, 
for we do not find it similarly handled by any other painter 
of the age; the lines of architectural perspective, too, are 
carried far into the background in the fashion peculiar to Sandro, 
who in his drawings even sketched them in beforehand in the 
same way. ‘The plain rolls as capitals and bases for the pilasters 
are very similar to those in the little picture of St. Augustine, 
though not quite so heavy. And the two small figures are 
likewise thoroughly typical of Botticelli’s latest period, as a 
comparison with the ‘ Adoration’ of 1500 in particular will 
show. In both we find the small heads and extremities, the 
same details of modelling, the billowy draperies with their 
disordered folds. Even the curiously conventionalised pines 
in the river scene, upon which the open portico affords a view, 
correspond to the deliberate conventionalising in the * Adoration.’ 


141 


CHAPTER VIII 


BOTTICELLIY’S DRAWINGS FOR THE DIVINA COMMEDIA 


which embraces almost two decades from about the death 

of Lorenzo il Magnifico to the artist’s own demise, we 
find that the works, some of which are difficult to place and to 
date, give the impression that his creative powers were unequal 
and that he was often interrupted. Profoundly disturbed and 
driven out of his true course by external and internal struggles 
as well as by religious and moral scruples, he appears to be 
seeking in vain to hew a straight path of clear and artistic unity 
through all the new views. Among the works of these years 
some are in many ways almost unpleasing, some are doubtful ; 
from the standpoint of quality few are fine, and all vary greatly 
among themselves. On the other hand, the beginning of this 
very period gave us a voluminous creation of great originality, 
and this is to a certain extent compensation for the poor quality 
of those other less satisfactory works. I refer to the drawings 
for Dante’s Divine Comedy, most of which are now in the 
possession of the Berlin ‘ Kupferstichkabinett.’’? Owing to 
the loss of Michelangelo’s illustrations of Dante this set con- 
stitutes a unique creation. The drawings with the written text 
formed a large folio, which was executed as a commission for 
Sandro’s old patron Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de’ Medici. Every 
canto of the poem is written on a separate sheet, with the draw- 
ing that illustrates its meaning on the opposite side. The Berlin 
Museum possesses eighty-eight sheets, in which the entire Pur- 

142 


[ we survey the long period of Botticelli’s later activity 


BOTTICELLI’S DRAWINGS 


gatorio and Paradiso are preserved as far as they were illustrated 
by Botticelli, but fifteen sheets of the Inferno are missing. Eight 
of these cantos have since been found in the Vatican Library, 
and we can at least form a good idea of the seven still missing 
from the engravings in Landino’s Commentary on the Divina 
Commedia that appeared in 1481, for these can all be traced 
to Sandro’s designs, though not, as was until recently believed, 
to the great work executed for Lorenzo di Pierfranceso, which 
was not undertaken till nearly ten years after Landino’s Com- 
mentary. 

It was formerly assumed that these drawings, which are 
amongst the earliest Florentine engravings on copper, were 
greatly simplified studies for the larger drawings, and that their 
faultiness was due to the engraver’s want of skill. But the 
age of Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco, who was born in 1464, shows 
this theory to be impossible, for then he must have ordered these 
drawings while still a boy, as they would need to have been 
commenced several years before the publication of the Landino 
book, which appeared in 1481. And the engravings would hardly 
have been executed from very different unfinished drawings, 
which were, besides, intended for illumination. Moreover, 
Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco, who desired to possess in this illumin- 
ated collection something quite unique, would certainly not have 
allowed the drawings to be made accessible to every one before- 
hand through engravings. Added to this, the character of 
the drawings indicates that they date from the end of the reign 
of the great Lorenzo and the ensuing years. Hence these en- 
eravings must be based on studies made by Sandro some ten 
years before the large drawings were begun. The engraver 
ill-treated the artist’s studies and reduced them considerably, 
nevertheless, besides their importance as early engravings, they 
have for us the added interest that they give us an idea of what 
the sheets missing from the later great work looked like. They 
have, moreover, the further general interest that they prove 

143 


SANDRO BOTTICEDL! 


how early and for how long Sandro was preoccupied with the © 


study of Dante, how thoroughly he knew the poet, and how 
deeply he was penetrated by his mystic, profoundly religious 


views. This alone makes it comprehensible that Savonarola’s. 


teaching and exhortation to repentance found in him such com- 
plete understanding and receptivity. 
The drawings are only partially finished. The artist first 


sketched them lightly with silver-point and later filled them in — 


more or less freely with a pen. A few sheets—three in all, 
from the Inferno—are carefully finished in body colours like 
miniatures. It can therefore hardly be doubted that the patron 
desired to have all the sheets similarly illuminated in body colour 


in order to possess a grand illuminated MS. quite in the good old 


impressive style. Moreover, the plain outline drawing and the 


almost entire lack of modelling indicates that they were to be © 


finished off in colour. The illuminated pages are fully plastic 
and far more comprehensible, nevertheless we must be thankful 
that the colouring stage was not reached in the others, for in 
these few coloured plates the delicacy of drawing and expression 
are considerably impaired by the painting being executed by 
a pupil, and the sheets produce a gaudy and disturbing impression. 
From the point of view of artistic effect it would perhaps even 
have been best if the original designs in silver-point had been 
left, if only they were not so slight and so much obliterated ; 
for, if we may judge from a few proofs, even in the pen copies 
there is not the same freshness as in the silver-point designs ; 
they are, moreover, on occasion sketchy and not executed with 
the same loving care. The unfinished state of many of the draw- 


ings leads us to the conclusion that the artist carried out this. 


great series little by little, and that he took up the working out 
of this or that design according to his chance inclination, even 
though the general scheme was to begin with the Inferno and end 
with the Paradiso. 'This conclusion is certainly indicated by the 


circumstance that the only illuminated drawings are those belong- — 


144 


BOTTICELLI’S DRAWINGS 


ing to the first cantos of the Inferno. That the work remained 
unfinished may be due to the death of the patron, which occurred 
in 1503; but the probabilities are in favour of Horne’s theory 
that Sandro, in consequence of the decided part taken ever 
since 1497 against Savonarola by Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco 
and his brother Giovanni, had turned from him and left his work 
incomplete. 

The drawings for the Divine Comedy reveal both the 
strength and the weakness of Botticelli’s art as far as we know 
it, but at the same time they show him to us from a new angle, 
and that in a very advantageous manner. Here, as in the 
Sixtine frescoes and the panels for furniture, the artist crowds 
several scenes into one drawing ; he follows the poet in his narra- 
tive instead of evolving from it separate and complete com- 
positions. This attempt to illustrate the text word for word 
led him at times into solutions quite unsatisfactory from an 
artistic point of view, as is especially the case in his representa- 
tions of Hell, and sometimes also in those of Purgatory. Even 
in these Sandro as usual shows his rich imagination and deep 
feeling, and scarcely ever offends our sense of beauty, but he 
becomes wearisome in his continual repetition of the multitude 
of unhappy wretches, wandering hither and thither headless 
or with faces turned backwards, stuck head foremost into holes 
in the rocks, being devoured by flames, wading in a sea of fire, 
or being tormented by fantastic devils. All these tortures and 
devilry are depicted not without imagination, but they are want- 
- ing in the humour that, in the work of Hieronymus Bosch, makes 
them not only endurable but extremely amusing. Another 
annoying factor is that the innumerable naked figures hastily 
sketched out of the artist’s head are without naturalistic detail 
and individuality and therefore monotonous in effect. One feels 
that many of these scenes left the artist himself indifferent or 
were even distasteful to him, as is obvious from the unloving 
manner in which many of the drawings, particularly in the Pur- 

10 145 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


gatorio, are executed. It is characteristic that among so many 
naked figures Botticelli scarcely even suggests a single female. 

Even in the later years in which these drawings originated, 
however, Sandro could still observe and reproduce in a wholly 
naturalistic manner; this is proved by a few sheets that, both 
as faithful reproductions of nature and at the same time as grand 
compositions, belong to the Master’s finest creations, and are, 
indeed, among the finest that we possess out of the Quattro- 
cento. In the powerful effect of the figures and the complete- 
ness of the composition not even Antonio Pollajuolo did any- 
thing to compare with the sheet depicting the giant in Canto XXX 
of the Purgatorio. Then the dancing Virtues, on most of the 
Purgatorio sheets in which they appear, are delightfully buoyant 
and markedly differentiated. The Cardinal Virtues, Justice, 
Courage, Wisdom and Temperance, graceful maidens in loose, 
fluttering raiment, encircle Dante and dance around him merrily, 
whilst the religious Virtues, Faith, Hope and Love, exhibit 
almost the freedom of Bacchantes. Both groups appear again 
dancing beside the chariot of the Church that bears the veiled 
Beatrice, over whom radiant and joyous angels, scarcely to be 
dice vuianed from Virtues, are pouring out a wealth of flowers, 
whilst scattered blossoms fill the air. 

These merry dancing spirits bear witness to the Master’s 
extraordinary gift of imagination, for this Purgatorio dancing 
is essentially different from that of the slender, gravely sweet boy- 
angels of the ‘ Adoration’ in the National Gallery and in the 
‘Coronation of the Virgin’, and again quite different to these is 
the ring of Graces in ° Spring,’ whose harshness is almost mas- 
culine. Another portrayal of the dance, totally different but 
quite as perfect in its movement, was evolved by the artist 
for his King David who, followed by a tuba player and one 
striking a tambourine, dances before the Ark of the Covenant. 
In this sheet, which illustrates Canto X of Purgatorio, Sandro 
shows us the bas-reliefs, giving instances of humility, that covered 

146 


BOTTICELLI’S DRAWINGS 


the rocky wall past which the poets proceeded to the first circle 
of Purgatory. The picture of the Ark of the Covenant was 
left unfinished, but besides the group around the dancing king, 
it has for us the additional interest of exhibiting Botticelli’s 
great powers of observation as revealed in the steers crouching 
before the Ark. That the artist also designed these out of his 
head is, however, shown by the exaggerated shortness and weak- 
ness of their forelegs. Behind the chariot is the royal palace 
done in silver-point only. This insignificant study is of special 
value because we see how carefully the artist drew in the lines of 
perspective, and also because the sketch of the facade shows the 
severe outlines of the rich but unornamented early Renaissance, 
just as it appears also in the buildings depicted on various furni- 
ture panels and in the representations of the Annunciation. 
This architecture, together with the whole style of the drawings, 
forms a strong indication that the date of their origin was at 
the end of the ’eighties or beginning of the ’nineties. 

The same sheet gives as the third picture on the marble 
wall: ‘The Justice of the Emperor Trajan.’ This vies with 
the unfinished ‘ Adoration of the Kings ’ as Sandro’s most crowded 
composition and the richest in figures, and yet it is so clear, of 
such powerful and vivid conception and of such faithfulness 
and variety in the reproduction both of the horses and the lancers, 
and of their movements, as could at that time only have been 
rivalled by Leonardo. The boisterous crowd of troopers burst- 
ing through the triumphal arch, the despair of the widow who 
throws herself before the emperor’s horse bewailing aloud the 
slaying of her only son whose corpse lies before her, the animated 
group around the emperor of officers who have ridden forth 
from the troop, the foot-soldiers to one side looking on with 
curiosity—it is all vividly depicted and yet with such delicacy. 
The plastic form lacking in the drawing was to have been sup- 
plied by the illuminating. Similar reliefs on buildings in the 
pictures painted for Giovanni Vespucci are sketchy compositions, 

147 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


mere suggestions in colour and not to be compared to this little 
masterpiece, in the careful but bold execution of which the artist 
must have taken special delight. Did he perchance observe 
something of the sort at the Emperor Charles VIIT’s entry into 
Florence, and draw this picture straight from memory ? 

Other sheets, both of the preceding and following Cantos 
of Purgatorio, reveal the same delicate sentiment and observation, 
so also do the different drawings of the envious who, being 
smitten with blindness, unwittingly linger near their enemies ; 
so also Sordello in the sketch for Canto VIII, a splendid Apollo- 
like figure drawn almost with the freedom of Raphael. But 
Sandro put his best work into the thirty drawings for the Cantos 
of the Paradiso. They are already distinguished from most of 
the Hell and Purgatory drawings by the fact that each one 
depicts a single theme, and that this theme unfailingly repre- 
sents Dante with Beatrice, generally alone, or surrounded only 
by little flames—the souls of the blessed—or in the midst of 
singing angels. They also stand out from the crowd of other 
drawings because the two persons here are represented as con- 
siderably larger than the figures in the others. This must 
certainly have increased the difficulty of the artist’s task, but 
the motives so exactly suited his artistic perception that he 
transformed these simple compositions of only two figures of 
no particular distinction of bearing and movement into a wealth 
of pictures that, in delicacy and variety of perception, in beauty 
of form and grace of movement and drapery, have scarcely 
their equal in the Art of the Renaissance. They are markedly 
superior to the numerous groups of the two poets in the two 
first sections of the Divine Comedy, which appear several times 
in almost every drawing, and in which Dante’s expression of 
thirst for knowledge, wonder, fear, horror or reverence, and the 
helpful and instructive manner of Virgil, are portrayed in the 
most varied and impressive way. In the Paradiso sheets Beat- 
rice, a head taller than the poet, is a sublime and splendid figure, 

148 


2 


BOTTICELLI’S DRAWINGS 


of noble proportions, grave and on occasion almost severe ex- 
pression, but with a strain of kindliness and without that shadow 
of melancholy that rests on most of Botticelli’s other female 
figures, especially his Madonnas. The way she accompanies 
Dante, now teaching, now reproving him, how she encourages 
and supports him, and initiates him into the secrets and splen- 
dours of the celestial regions and the heavenly hosts, is repre- 
sented with the same delicacy and rich differentiation with 
which in the Dante, a figure that approaches Beatrice in nobility 
of appearance and sentiment, are exhibited in the most varying 
degrees holy dread, worship, fear, doubt, longing, love, wonder, 
and all the other expressions of a soul in the remorseful convic- 
tion of its own sinfulness, but strong in its blessed trust in divine 
mercy. 


149 


CHAPTER IX 


BOTTICELLI: THE ARTIST AND THE MAN 


ae illustrations to Dante’s Divine Comedy form a 
climax in Botticelli’s later period, and indeed in his 
whole career. Their freshness and sincerity of con- 

ception do not admit of doubt that the designs for most of the 

sheets were at least begun soon after Lorenzo’s death, probably 
shortly after Sandro’s return from Rome; and the engravings 
to Landino’s Commentary show that, before 1480, he had already 
been occupied with similar Dante drawings. In any case the 
designs were done before Savonarola’s teaching exercised the 
decisive influence on the artist that is evident in his later paint- 
ings. The reformation projected by the Monk of San Marco 
failed; it was bound to fail because he sought to carry out 
his plans for justifiable ecclesiastical reform by social and political 
means, and to set up a theocratic state of a semi-medieval, 
semi-adventurous character which was not in harmony with 
the advanced culture of Italy and which separated Florence 
from the rest of the world and hastened her ruin. Although 
by his singleness of purpose and fiery zeal he had captured 
one after another of the best and most cultured men in Florence 
and in the course of the years even brought the masses to his 
side, he could not stave off the collapse of his * Kingdom of 

Christ on Earth,’ and paid the penalty of a fiery death. The 
Interregnum was a fateful time for Florence; it was not until 

after the murder of Duke Alessandro nearly half a century later 

that quieter conditions returned. But it was a mournful quiet- 
150 


THE ARTIST AND THE MAN 


ness: a spirit of gloom hung over Florence, while a fawning, 
bureaucratic government induced but a poor revival, and from 
that time Florence was practically cut off from all active co- 
operation in the culture of the age, and even from Italy’s share 
in it. 

In addition to this, Botticelli was deeply influenced by 
Savonarola’s teaching, and the disorders of his rule and death 
had completely upset his spirit and his artistic activity. In 
order to regain peace of mind he had endeavoured to bring 

“his artistic conception into harmony with the monkish preacher’s 
demands upon Art. This resulted in a moral confusion which 
crippled his creative imagination and finally almost killed it. 
Just as the last work of his brother Simone, with whom he 
lived, was to write his reminiscences of the times of Savonarola’s 
rule and death, so also the memory of the monk and his teach- 
ing lived on in Sandro and in his last works and effected the 
gradual destruction of his own true and lovely art. After 
Savonarola’s martyrdom we scarcely hear of him again; from 
1505 onwards report is silent until a short record informs us 
in few words that on May 17, 1510, the family vault of the 
Filipepi in the small churchyard of the Ognissanti received his 
mortal remains. Always quiet and modest, as he went through 
life so he left it. Forgotten by the world and ailing, he had 
spent his last years among his relatives under the parental 
roof, but it is the pathos of his life’s close and the tragedy of 
this gradual decline of his productive powers, that brings Sandro, 
the man, if possible nearer to us and makes him doubly dear. 

Whoever becomes absorbed in the works of an artist is sure 
to try and form from them some idea of his personality. But 
even if his conception should to a certain extent be funda- 
mentally correct, yet it could never quite correspond to the 
reality, for unintentionally every one interpolates this or that 
trait from his own sentiments or from the spirit of his times. 
Judged by his paintings Sandro appears to us a romantic, an 

151 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


artist of exuberant imagination, of deep mystical conception, great 
sense of beauty and many-sided humanistic culture, associating 
with the best and greatest men of his day, with whom we think of 
him as standing on an intimate footing. In fancy we picture him 
as a handsome and well-set-up man, well groomed and careful 
in his attire, living in rich artistic surroundings. ‘The appearance 
of the elegant young man with the large, handsome features 
and rich costume, who looks out on the beholder from the 
foreground of the ‘ Adoration’ with the Medici portraits, and 
who is therefore usually taken for the artist, fits in admirably 
with this idea. But the reality has small connection with this 
picture. Even the accounts of the old art-biographers, and 
Vasari’s in particular, scanty as they are, contain few features 
that correspond with the impressive likeness in the * Adoration ’ 
and with the picture of our fancy ; moreover, the records con- 
cerning this artist which zealous research among the archives 
of Florence have of late years gradually brought to light, sub- 
stantially confirm those accounts and represent Botticelli’s life 
and appearance as even simpler and far more prosaic. These 
records are few in number and almost all short and trivial, 
but they are lightning flashes by which Sandro’s life and char- 
acter during the different stages of his career are so far revealed 
as to enable us to form a reasonably probable conception of 
his personality. 

As we see from the records, Sandro was the son of quite a 
poor tanner, that is, of the lower middle class. He never dis- 
owned this origin, and even though the circumstances of the 
entire family gradually improved, he remained to the end of 
his life with his many brothers and nephews, and shared the 
modest house in the Via Porcellana with his father, after 
whose death he continued to live there with his relatives until 
he died. His life passed quietly and without salient events ; 
with the single exception of the summons to Rome to decorate 
the Sixtine Chapel, he spent his years, as far as we know, entirely 

152 


THE ARTIST AND THE MAN 


in Florence among his relatives. A strong family feeling is 
therefore a feature as characteristic of the artist as is his modest 
bourgeois disposition. In the year 1481 no less than twenty 
persons of the Filipepi family lived together in one dark alley, 
in a labyrinth of little old houses, all nooks and corners, that 
were pulled down in the eighteenth century, and it is most 
unlikely that members of the Medici family went in and out 
in such a quarter. In the Quattrocento artists in general 
were reckoned among the craftsmen and held in not much 
higher esteem than goldsmiths. No doubt Sandro, like other 
prominent artists of his day, stood in active communication 
with the Mecenas of great families, for whom he produced so 
much, and will have had direct converse with his patrons, and 
particularly Lorenzo, concerning the composition of works 
commissioned by them, which were often extremely complicated 
in meaning and contained pointed allusions to themselves ; but 
as a rule the negotiations were, no doubt, carried on through 
the literary men of Lorenzo’s circle, and especially through 
Angelo Poliziano, who, as Prior of San Paolino, was a neighbour 
of the Filipepi family. 

Sandro stood on no such intimate footing as Bertoldo, who 
accompanied Lorenzo to the baths, lived in his villa and was 
treated by his personal physician; this was a case of unusual 
favour because Lorenzo loved to discuss with him his artistic 
plans and had made him director of his Art School in the San 
Marco monastery. We cannot believe that Sandro had any 
such connections. either with the Magnifico or with the latter’s 
cousin Lorenzo in the Villa Castello, who seem to have been 
the artist’s best customers among the art patrons of Florence. 
We learn from the memoirs of Sandro’s brother Simone that, 
even in the time of Savonarola’s rule, the artist held aloof from 
any public testimony, in spite of his enthusiasm for the monk’s 
teaching. This is another proof that Sandro was of a retiring 
disposition, whose only desire was to live for his art in the 

153 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


intimate circle of his family and friends. There. was, however, 
nothing of the recluse or eccentric about him, for he had a 
profound love for Nature and observed and studied her with 
open eyes; moreover, like a true Florentine, he had plenty of 
humour, and far from shutting himself up in his studio, he 
delighted to collect friends and brother-artists around him. 
Vasari tells about him various anecdotes that had been preserved 
through several generations as studio gossip, and through 
Simone the brother we learn that, after Savonarola’s death 
Sandro’s studio was a favourite rendezvous where the martyr’s 
tragic end was excitedly discussed by friends and enemies. 

It is also typical of Sandro’s shy disposition and independent 
and speculative nature that he never married. We are told 
by the Anonimo, Sandro’s oldest biographer, that when 'Tommaso 
Soderini once advised him to take a wife, he is said to have 
replied that he had recently dreamed that he was married, 
and such terror had taken hold of him that he had woken up 
and wandered desperately up and down the town till morning. 
Nevertheless this enemy of wedlock painted the loveliest female 
figures and the most attractive young mothers. Is it possible 
that the remarkable fact that the most charming Madonnas 
were without exception painted and sculptured by unmarried 
artists, such as Sandro, Luca della Robbia, Donatello, and 
Raphael, is due to the circumstance that it is more stimulating 
to artistic imagination and power of expression to long after 
a woman than to possess her ? 

Nothwithstanding his retired life and the modest and 
friendly disposition emphasised by all his biographers, the 
artist could, if seriously disturbed in his work or his quiet con- 
templative inner life, be very unpleasant and resort to strong 
measures of reprisal, as we gather from his lawsuit against a 
neighbour who pursued a noisy handicraft close to Sandro’s 
studio. But, unless forcibly torn from his work, he was kindly 
and approachable and particularly fond of all persons devoted 

154 


THE ARTIST AND THE MAN 


to Art, ‘“‘che vedero studiosi della arte,’ as Vasari puts it. 

The monument that Sandro’s pupil Filippino raised to his 
teacher by introducing his likeness in the frescoes of the Cappella — 
Brancacci gives us a faithful portrait of the man, simple and 
lifelike. He was of small and weakly stature, but the clear- 
cut profile with the powerful hook nose exhibits pleasing and 
expressive traits ; the deep-set eyes betray the earnest, specula- 
tive nature, and in the firm mouth, in spite of its look of suffer- 
ing, we seem to detect the Florentine sense of humour. Taking 
into account the remaining records we have of Sandro’s character, 
he appears to us a simple, homely man, unassuming, friendly 
and kind, full of enthusiasm for his art, to which all his efforts 
were devoted, reserved, very high principled and profoundly 
religious; a true Florentine of the Quattrocento with all the 
lovable characteristics and great gifts of the period, but with 
none of the faults inherent in so many of the greaticbel men of 
the age of Lorenzo il Magnifico. 


The exhibition of the cartoons by Leonardo and Michel- 
angelo depicting the victories of Anghiari and Cascina in 1505 
announced to the world the triumph of the new art. There 
was no room for Botticelli beside this new fifteenth-century 
art with its bold features; his work was still held in some 
honour by his successors, but this was merely due to respect 
for the achievement of a worthy pioneer, now superseded. We 
who are able to survey the development of Italian Art from a 
distance, now that the critical labours of recent years, though 
still far from finished, have winnowed out and established 
his work, can more easily do justice to his art and assign to 
him the place in that development that is his due, than could 
be done immediately after his death. 

Botticelli grew up at a time when, in Florence, a healthy 
realism had gained the upper hand, and’ in his artistic education 
he had as teachers the very men who had contributed most to 

155 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


this victory. The young painter made their attainments his 
own and for a time followed in their steps, but from the very 
outset he had his own characteristics, out of which gradually 
developed a powerful individual style which was without counter- 
part in all Italy. Botticelli’s art forms a climax in Florentine 
painting of the Quattrocento, but marks at the same time its 
close. Among the leading masters of the younger generation 
he is, by reason of his imagination and sense of beauty, the 
most important and original. No artist in Italy approaches 
him in inventive power and imaginative conception even of 
the most varied and peculiar motives. Alike in religious, 
mythological, allegorical, or symbolic subjects, he forms a new 
and personal conception of his theme and transforms it into 
a truly artistic creation, even when it has been minutely pre- 
scribed or borrowed literally from the classics. He loves to 
introduce in his pictures many an allusion to his patrons or to 
personal experiences, but such allusions in no way disturb our 
fresh delight in these works of art, rather, when they are pointed 
out, the problems they give rise to increase their charm. Com- 
positions such as ‘ Spring,’ ° The Birth of Venus,’ and ‘ Mars 
and Venus’ exercise a particular spell by this very means; 
we shall perhaps never suceed in fathoming the artist’s whole 
intention and all his allusions, but just as they excite the be- 
holder to try and solve the problems, so at the same time they 
allow him to penetrate deeper into the many-sided artistic 
subtleties of the pictures, and they continually attract him anew 
and entice him to discover fresh beauties in them. 

The artist’s exuberant fancy is curbed and guided in the 
happiest manner by an equally keen sense of beauty. The 
charming appearance of his figures, the grace of their move- 
ments, the taste exhibited in the choice and arrangement of 
the costumes and the formation of their folds, all combine 
to give full effect to the masterly construction of his composi- 
tions in all their perfection and beauty; but at the same time 

156 


fave ARTIST AND FHE MAN 


they reveal the meaning of these representations in their thrill- 
ing earnestness and in their depth and inwardness of feeling. 
Florentine art of the Renaissance period can show no picture 
of more impressive construction and harmonious effect than 
the * Madonna Enthroned with Saints’ in the Uffizi, or the 
* Madonna with the two Saints John in an Arbour ’ in the Berlin 
Gallery. In its portraiture the ° Adoration of the Kings’ in 
the Uffizi competes with all the group paintings of the Dutch 
masters, and leaves them far behind in freedom and imagina- 
tion of conception and arrangement, as well as in the impressive 
beauty of the figures. This picture, which might have depended 
chiefly on the portraits for its effect, is particularly admirable 
for the way in which the artist subordinates them to the historical 
representation, and even utilises them in it. The members of 
the Medici family here become the Kings and their retinue 
who bring to the new-born Saviour and His Mother their worship 
and gifts. Although the figures are all portraits, and although 
they are clothed in Florentine costume of the Quattrocento, 
yet the composition in its arrangement and the several figures 
in their bearing and expression are in entire harmony with the 
religious treatment and produce no profane impression what- 
ever. Elsewhere also, whenever portraits figure in Sandro’s 
paintings and frescoes, they are regularly co-ordinated with 
the representation, even when they appear in such numbers as 
in the Sixtine Chapel frescoes, whereas in the works of all other 
masters, such as Ghirlandajo, Perugino, and even Sandro’s 
pupil Filippino, they obtrude themselves more or less incon- 
gruously through not being absorbed into the dramatic repre- 
sentation. 

The beauty of form of Botticelli’s figures is quite original. 
His nudes—Venus, the Graces, Mars, St. Sebastian—cannot 
compete with figures such as Raphael’s in accuracy and per- 
fection of drawing, nor with such as Leonardo’s in apprehension 
of form; an academician would discover many a fault in them, 

157 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


but with it all their appearance is of rare loveliness, captivat- 
ing and decorative, and at the same time restrained and pure, 
a loveliness not attained by the masters of perfection. 

Under the first strong influence of his teachers the artist 
turned in the direction of powerful plastic effect and naturalistic 
detail, he emphasised his perspectives and, in his early pictures, 
such as the Gardner Madonna and even the St. Petersburg 
‘ Adoration,’ he left room to a certain extent for landscape 
in the background of his pictures. It seemed almost as if he 
would continue in the path that Verrocchio in particular had 
pointed out to him; and indeed, the works he produced while 
still under this influence are not his poorest, as is proved by 
the ‘ Fortitude’ and the ‘ Adoration’ in the Uffizi. But his 
own feeling, that profound mysticism, which showed itself 
already in his early works, came gradually to full expression 
and set him to some extent in opposition to his teachers and 
colleagues ;_ through it he formed a style that has in it almost 
as much of the Middle Ages as of his own day. In the first 
half of the fifteenth century Florence, through her great pioneer 
artists, had become so completely the centre of artistic develop- 
ment for all Italy, that the other provinces gladly brought their 
new ideas there and continued their training under Florentine 
influences. The Domenico Veneziano brought luminous colour 
painting, the Umbrians through Piero della Francesca brought 
the perfection of perspective, even down to aerial perspective, 
and they brought the enhanced expression of emotion through 
Perugino, who also prepared the way for Raphael’s classic con- 
struction by his compact architectural settings. But though 
the younger generation of Florentines learned from their foreign 
fellow-students they did not follow them, neither did Botticelli. 
He certainly studied perspective with eagerness, and followed 
the new precepts so well in the construction of his pictures 
that Luca Paccioli cites him as one of the ablest masters of 
perspective. But it is obvious that he only makes use of it 

158 


THE ARTIST AND THE MAN 


for the tasteful setting and closing in of his scenes, or in order 
to produce an illusory perspective effect. For this reason it 
does not worry him much that the figures have no room in the 
architecture, as for instance in the two St. Augustine pictures, 
in the Annunciations and elsewhere. As he does not give 
depth to his interiors through light and space, his representations 
and even at times his portraits appear to stand in front of the 
architecture instead of inside it. Not until his later period 
is greater importance given to the architecture, and then, 
indeed, it becomes the chief feature, and the little figures are 
no more than figures in a landscape; this, however, occurs 
only in the paintings intended as panels, for which, as we have 
already seen, the artist took as models panels in mosaic with 
their architectural scenery. 

In a similar way the artist entirely subordinates the land- 
scape, except in a few early pictures, and even in those it is only 
used for decorative effect, he having, as Leonardo tells us, no 
opinion of landscape painting. To him landscape, where he 
introduces it at all, is no more than the neutral, almost colourless 
and vaguely sketched curtain against which the colours and 
plastic effect of his figures shall stand out more clearly. For 
a like purpose he uses the blue aether, particularly as a 
background for portraits, and in the ‘Calumny of Apelles’ 
he takes the green sea as a pale-toned background in order to 
produce a stronger colour effect by the contrast. On the 
other hand, in many of his pictures he closes in his scenes with 
a thick background of forest, artistically clipped arbours of 
evergreen, or whole flower gardens, and sets them on a vivid 
carpet of green sward, equally decoratively treated but absolutely 
natural in effect. Herein the artist reveals himself as a true 
Nature enthusiast, as a lover of green meadows with their 
wealth of many-coloured flowers, of which Lorenzo de’ Medici 
sings so delightfully in his Bucolics. Such backgrounds, from 
which the figures stand out by virtue of their colouring, bring 

159 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


these pictures nearer in effect to the early Dutch and French 
tapestries, the verdures, in which the figures in like manner 
appear as if imbedded in green meadow or forest, in groves 
or before hedges. 

The artist’s return to medieval conception, whither his pre- 
occupation with the illustration of Dante’s Divine Comedy 
helped to lead him, showed itself in this disregard for three- 
dimensional drawing which becomes ever more noticeable in 
his later works, and in other extremely varied ways. As he 
avoids as far as possible any depth of grouping and endeavours 
to present his figures all on one plane, so in fuller compositions 
he seeks to build them up one above, rather than one behind, 
the other. The ‘ Adoration’ of 1500 in the National Gallery, 
in which the figures in the foreground are no bigger than those 
in the background, is the most striking example of this; but 
the ‘Coronation of the Virgin’ in the Uffizi, and even the 
‘Madonna Enthroned’ in the same gallery, the tondos with 
angels closely grouped around the Madonna, and the two late 
Burials, amongst others, reveal the same attempt. The folds 
of the garments, now sharply creased, now fluttering and billowy, 
and the way in which they seem to strike the ground, the ex- 
travagant amount of gold on the costumes, the pseudo-Gothic 
patterns of the dainty golden ornaments, and the brightening 
of the fair hair with gold, are further signs of his devotion to 
medieval models. And this is revealed even more strongly 
in the feeling and expression of his figures and, indeed, in his 
whole conception of the world. 

The passive, half-suffering, half-wistful expression which> 
as we have seen, is characteristic of most of his figures with the 
exception of some early creations, is not to be found in the 
work of any of his contemporaries, but it is absolutely significant 
of Gothic art. The markedly feminine trait in his work also 
corresponds to this; his female figures and half-feminine angels 
are the most charming creations of the Florentine art of this 

160 


THE ARTIST AND THE MAN 


period, whereas his ideal male figures often seem weakly or 
theatrical. His St. Michael in the large ‘Madonna with Saints’ 
in the Uffizi, although practically borrowed from the splendid 
figure in Verrocchio’s ‘ Tobias with the Three Archangels,’ is 
quite as effeminate as the emaciated young Baptist beside 
him, whilst the three old saints with their immense beards, 
in the same altar-piece in the Uffizi, almost give the impression 
of stage saints. This is also true of the papal portraits in the 
Sixtine Chapel, and even of the Moses in the fresco of the 
‘Punishment of Korah,’ that has, quite unjustifiably, been so 
highly praised. This weakness is more striking still in pictures 
of as late date as the two ‘ Lamentations for Christ’ and ‘ The 
Descent of the Holy Ghost,’ as well as in many Dante drawings. 
If we except the excellent portrait figures, it is mostly only 
in the earlier works that we find pleasing exceptions to this, 
such as the grand St. Augustine in the Ognissanti Church and 
the admirable male types in the * Adoration of the Kings’ in 
the Hermitage at Leningrad. The more Sandro forgoes the 
detailed modelling of the body, the bolder and more significant 
he becomes in his outlines; herein also he betrays his affinity 
_ with the great masters of the Trecento. In the skill with which 
he draws the body in outline and at the same time indicates 
movement and even plastic form, there is scarcely an artist 
who can touch him. Moreover, the purity of effect and the 
graceful appearance of his nude figures are not a little due to 
this delicate drawing of their outlines. 

The profound mysticism and the delight in allegorical and 
symbolical allusion, which are equally the result of Sandro’s 
ecclesiastical and medieval idealism, come more and more to the 
surface in opposition to the healthy realism of his earlier period, 
and finally gain the upper hand. But Botticelli’s art is grievously 
injured in the struggle; he had not absorbed naturalism suffi- 
ciently to be able rightly to grasp, in its generalisation and its 
inner significance, this new style that was forming and that 

11 161 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Savonarola so materially encouraged by his teaching, albeit 
from considerations quite other than artistic. Our artist could 
neither take hold of it nor transform it for himself, as the younger 
generation of artists in contact with the monk, such as Barto- 
lommeo della Porta and above all Michelangelo, did. The artist 
Botticelli was enslaved by Savonarola, whereas those others 
were only more firmly established by him in the new paths 
that they had already entered independently. 

In Sandro’s art there is almost from the beginning a long- 
ing and striving for the goals that were reached in the art of the 
Cinquecento by such as Leonardo and Michelangelo; the 
tragedy of the Master’s artistic struggle lies in the fact that he 
could not clearly visualise these ideals, that he had not the 
capacity to conform himself fully to them, but herein also lies 
the special charm of his art. That peculiar, infinitely attractive 
melancholy of his figures is the expression of this inward struggle, 
the longing that fills him combined. with the inability that 
prevented him from attaining complete satisfaction. Botticelli’s 
art is the climax of the last phase of the early Florentine Re- 
naissance ; here it completes, and at the same time outlives, 
itself. Hence a suggestion of decadence inherent in his art, 
particularly in the later creations, a shadow of that elegant 
decadence that expressed itself again in Florence, after the 
most injurious effects of the Revolution were overcome, in the 
charming and peculiar style of the great portrait painters around 
Andrea del Sarto—Franciabigio, Bugiardini, Pontormo and 
Bronzino. Even the Weltschmerz in Michelangelo’s figures 
proceeded from the same source. Was it nothing but a common 
reverence for Fra Girolamo that brought Michelangelo into 
close relationship with Sandro, or was it not rather that, in 
spite of the great divergence between their art, they were in 
sympathy in their struggle for the highest ideals and in the 
_ painful consciousness that they were unable to reach or realise 
them as completely as they desired ? Out of the discord between 

162 


Cele e ARTIST AND THE MAN 


desire and accomplishment, out of the contrast between 
their own high aims and the moral ruin brought about by the 
super-culture of the Renaissance, arose the Welischmerz of 
Michelangelo and the melancholy of Botticelli; in the case 
of the former there issued from that source ever new and ever 
greater projects that were destined to remain unfinished, and 
that, in spite of his greatness, finally reduced his art to a certain 
frigid emptiness ; in the case of the latter it led through exuber- 
ance of feeling to unnaturalness and a numbing of creative 
power. ‘The lack of that satisfaction of the desire of their souls 
which Savonarola’s miscarried revolution failed to produce, 
led them both back to strict orthodoxy which, however, crippled 
their creative activity and injured their art in ever-increasing 
degree. The grievous inward struggle is in both cases the 
precious seed of art; divine inspiration speaks from it, but 
so also does mortal discontent, these two causes lead to the 
triumph of their art and ultimately to its wreck and close. 
In any period it is ever the destiny of those great ones in whom 
divine inspiration awakes that the full development of their 
genius bears within it the seed of its own decay; but there is 
also the consolation that in this way is new art founded. The 
profanum vulgus, that slough in which great ideas find their 
limitation and their end, provides at the same time the soil 
for their revival. 

From a chance-preserved letter we know of the intimate 
footing on which Botticelli stood with Michelangelo. From 
a passing remark of Leonardo’s in his treatise on painting, 
although the remark is partly negative, we learn that he had 
some connection with this other great figure of Italy’s new art. 
In his own work he was even further from Leonardo than from 
Michelangelo, but just as he was related to him in his deep 
emotion and lofty, half-dissatisfied striving after the highest, 
so also in another direction, that of zeal for careful finish, and 
delight in detail and minute painting, he betrays affinity with 

163 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


the not-much-younger Leonardo. They shared the delight 
in plants and flowers and their careful portrayal; they also 
had in common the invention of fanciful ornaments and decora- 
tion of all kinds, and the peculiar interest in rich, fantastic 
arrangement of women’s hair—the ° acconciatura’—which they 
used in mythological female figures and fancy portraits. But 
Leonardo tries to observe laws in the construction of plants, 
in the waving and braiding of hair, and in the invention of 
ornaments, and therefore is apt to over-emphasise such details 
in his pictures and make them stand out too much; whereas 
Botticelli, on the other hand, uses them to enhance the effect 
of his pictures and therefore treats them more from a decorative 
standpoint. 

His delight in detail is evident also in the introduction and 
charming conception of the most varied domestic objects, 
furniture, fabrics, ornaments, and so on, so that his paintings 
constitute a particularly rich and reliable source of information 
concerning the arts and crafts in Florence towards the end 
of the fifteenth century. The old biographers, a few records, 
and even some pieces that have been preserved prove that, far 
from reproducing in these objects only the works of others, 
he rendered valuable service to the crafts in various ways by 
his designs. The Poldi-Pezzoli Museum in Milan still possesses a 
piece of embroidery in silk and gold for the headpiece of a vest- 
ment, depicting an exquisite *‘ Coronation of the Virgin,’ executed 
after a design of Sandro’s in the ’eighties. The tapestry with a 
Pallas, now in private ownership in France, has a similar origin, 
and several pieces of arras in the great Florentine tapestry 
collection are believed to have originated in this way ; besides 
these there is a record of a certain richly embroidered canopy for 
Orsanmichele. His furniture panels show that he also took part 
in furnishing the household possessions of Florentine aristocracy, 
and it is highly probable that he made designs for mosaic work. 
The praying- and reading-desks, the candlesticks, caskets, and 

164 7 


af ’ 
le ee bh 


THE ARTIST AND THE MAN 


astronomical instruments, the pendants and chains, the vases 
and bowls of enamelled copper and crystal, and other ornamental 
or useful articles in his pictures all exhibit the same style, the 
same elegant simplicity, for which reason we must trace their 
invention to Botticelli himself, and we may assume that he also 
rendered the craftsmen considerable assistance by his designs 
for these objects. This was undoubtedly the case with the 
frames for his own pictures, several of which are, as we have 
seen, still in existence, and in their outlines and painting so 
typical of Botticelli, so exactly suited to the character and colour- 
ing of the pictures, that we must ascribe both their design and 
painting to the Master. 

Sandro was equally stimulating for the reproductive arts 
in Florence as he was for the crafts. We know that the engrav- 
ings for Landini’s Dante Commentary of 1481 were made from 
his drawings, and exact designs must have been given by Sandro 
for the almost contemporary ‘ Procession of Bacchus’ and for 
the later ‘ Assumption of the Virgin ’ that was similarly engraved. 
on two large plates. Both of these were executed by far better 
engravers than were the plates for Landini’s Commentary. 
Paul Kristeller advances a similar theory about two other large 
Florentine engravings of the same period, the * Conversion of 
St. Paul’ and the ‘Christ before Pilate.’ Sandro’s art also 
exercised a particularly strong influence on the revival of Floren- 
tine woodcuts, which were executed during the last decade of 
the Quattrocento in a manner so rich and artistic, so full of 
style, that they have remained unrivalled save by Hans Holbein 
a generation later. We are certainly equally correct in ascrib- 
ing an essential part in this impetus in the productive arts to 
Botticelli and in refusing to believe that he practised these arts 
himself. | 

Sandro is not really a master of colour, but neither was 
any Florentine painter of the fifteenth century. In his colour- 
ing he follows Fra Filippo, though he harmonises his teacher’s — 

165 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


clear joyousness of colour to a more shaded effect. He does 
not attain this as the Pollajuoli did, and also Verrocchio on 
occasion, through the general brownish tone of resinous sandarac 
paints, the mixing of which was their intention; Botticelli’s 
method was the use of rich golden ornaments with which the 
fabrics are covered or clasped together, and white transparent 
veils in which his figures and fabrics are often half hidden. 
These methods, both of subduing or brightening, are quite 
as characteristic of Sandro as are the extraordinarily artistic 
designs and execution of these golden ornaments and gold- 
embroidered fabrics and the skilful use and draping of the veils ; 
in fact, they are sufficiently peculiar to Sandro to distinguish 
paintings done by his own hand from works of pupils. In 
this respect also the ‘ Raczynski Madonna’ and ‘ Spring’ are 
admirable masterpieces. An examination of the colour values 
and combinations by means of which the artist secures harmony 
of colour effect in his paintings, how he forms and develops his 
particular style in this direction, and how he compares with 
his teachers and contemporaries, would be a valuable study, 
especially for a colleague with musical gifts, and certainly more 
valuable than the one-sided and monotonous examinations 
customary at present, which are confined to the plastic effect 
of his representations and their relation to space, or even to 
the artist’s personal idiosyncrasies or weaknesses in design and 
modelling. For the great effect and artistic worth of the paint- 
ings depends at least as much on their colouristic appearance 
as upon their composition, design and expression. The har- 
monious effect of the pictures—their manner—is an essential 
factor in the correct estimation of Botticelli. 

Although I have compared the Master with artists such as 
Michelangelo and Leonardo, my intention was not to draw a 
parallel between him and these, the greatest figures amongst 
the many admirable masters of the Italian Renaissance; I 
merely sought to point out certain elements in the art of the 

166 


THE ARTIST AND THE MAN 


Master in which he appears to be related to them, and I also 
desired to explain his connections with those pioneers. In 
other respects Sandro is a true son of the Quattrocento, and as 
such has his special importance, his peculiar charm; Florentine 
art of the last phase of the fifteenth century attains in him its 
last and highest perfection. To the delight in a full representation 
of life and personality with which in his early works he vied with 
the greatest of his contemporaries, he combines a preoccupation 
with the life of the soul which was never again reached in Italy, 
and manages to express the most delicate sentiments of his 
nation and his age. The earnestness and penetration with which 
he undertakes this task, the wealth of imagination which leads 
him continually to fresh solutions, assure him his unique posi- 
tion, his importance for posterity, and not less his value among 
the best of his contemporaries. : 


167 





BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Vasari, Grorcio: Le vite dei piu eccellenti architetti, pittori e scultori italiani. 
‘Florence, 1550. T. il, pp. 490-6. 

Le vite ete. Con nuove annotazioni e commenti di Gaetano Milanesi. 
5 volumes. Florence, 1878-80. Vol. III, pp. 300-31 

Leben der ausgezeichnetsten Maler, Bildhauer, Baumeister etc. Aus 








dem Italienischen von L. Schorn. 3 volumes, Stuttgart and Tibingen, 
| 1832-9. Vol. III, pp. 235-50.1 

—— Lebensbeschreibungen der ausgezeichnetsten Maler, Bildhauer und 
Architekten der Renaissance. Her. von Ernst Jaffé. Berlin, 1911. 
pp. 209-18 (translation by Schorn and Forster). 

ALBERTINI, FRANCESCO: Memorie di molte statue e picture che sono nella 
inclyta citta di Florentia. 1510. 

ANONIMO GADDIANO: Codice dell’... Hd. C. de Fabriczy—Arch. stor. 
Ital. Ser. V. Tom XII, 1893, p. 70. 

Antonio Bru: Libri di...Ed. C. de Fabriczy—ib. Tom. VII. 1891, p. 
299. 

Horne HerzBert P.: Alessandro Filipepi called Sandro Botticelli, Painter 
of Florence. London, 1906. 

ULMANN, HERMANN: Sandro Botticelli. Munich, 1898. 

SupPino, J. B.: Sandro Botticelli. Florence, 1900. 

PLUNKETT, C. N., Count: Sandro Botticelli. London, 1900. 

STREETER, A.: Botticelli. London, 1903. 

J AHN-RUSCONI, ArTuR: Sandro Botticelli—Monografie illustrate No. 38, 

_ Bergamo, 1907. 

STEINMANN, E.: Botticelli—Kiinstlermonografien No. 24. Bielefeld and 

Leipzig, 1913. 
1 It is characteristic that Adolf Stern and Andreas Oppermann, in their Leben 


der Maler (2 vols. Leipzig, 1862 and 1863), a version of Vasari, suppressed Sandro 
Botticelli as unimportant. 


169 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


WaaGEN, G. F.: Treasures of Art in Great Britain. London, 1854. 

Pater, W. H.: Studies on the History of the Renaissance. London, 1873, 
p. 39. 

Mintz, E.: Les Précurseurs de la Renaissance. Paris and London, 1889, 
p. 139. 

MoreE.tu1, G. (Lermolieff): Die Galerien Borghese und Doria Panfili in Rom. 
Leipzig, 1890, p. 105. 

CAVALCASELLE E CrOWE: Storia della pittura in Italia. Vol. VI. Firenze, 
1894, p. 208. 

VentTuRI, ADOLFO: La primavera nelle arti rappresentative—Nuova Antologia, 
1892, p. 46. 

BERENSON, BERNHARD: The Florentine Painters of the Renaissance. New 
York and London, 1896, pp. 69, 104. 

VENTURI, ADOLFO: Tesori d’arte inediti di Roma. Roma, 1896. 

Vittari, P., = Casanova, E.: Scelta di prediche e scritti di Fra Girolamo 
Savonarola. Florence, 1898, p. 453. (Extract from a Diary of 
Simone Filipepi, the brother of Botticelli.) 

BERENSON, BERNHARD: The Study and Criticism of Italian Art. London, 
1901, p. 46. 

Epurussi!, CHARLES: Les deux fresques du Musée du Louvre attribuées a 
Sandro Botticelli—Gazette des Beaux-Arts, Vol. 25 (1882), p. 475. 

MESNIL, JACQUES: Documenti su Sandro Botticelli—Miscellanea d’Arte, 
1903, Nos. 1, 5 and 6. 

Crowe, J. A.: Sandro Botticelli—Gazette des Beaux-Arts, Vol. 34 (1886), 
pp. 177, 466. 

WoeERMANN, K.: Filippo Lippi, Sandro Botticelli und Filippino Lippi. Berlin, 

1888. 

Fra Filippo Lippi und Fra Diamante als Lehrer Sandro Botticellis. 

Breslau, 1890. 

WarsureG, ABy: Sandro Botticellis Geburt der Venus und Friihling. Hamburg 

und Leipzig, 1893. 

Sandro Botticellis Tempelszene zu Jerusalem in der Sixtinischen Kapelle 

—Repert. f. Kunstwissenschaft 18 (1893), p. 1. 

JACOBSEN, E.: L’allegoria della Primavera—Archivio storico dell’ Arte, 
1897. 

—— Quelques souvenirs de Sandro Botticelli—Rev. Archéologique, 1901. 


170 








BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Marrat, B: La primavera del Botticelli—Rassegna internazionale 15th June, 
1901. 

STEINMANN, E.: Die Sixtinische Kapelle. Munich, 1901, pp. 215, 244, 459. 

Horne, Herzsert P.: The Story of a Famous Botticelli—Monthly Rev., 
1902. 

Wicxnorr, F.: Die Hochzeitsbilder Sandro Botticellis—Jahrb. d. Konigl. 
Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 1906, pp. 198 ff. 

Zeichnungen von Sandro Botticelli zu Dantes Goéttlicher Komédie nach dem 
Originalen im Kgl. Kupferstichkabinett zu Berlin. Her. im Auftrage 
der Generalverwaltung der Kgl. Museen von F. Lippmann. Berlin, 
1884 ff. 

Epurussi, CHARLES: La Divine Comédie illustrée par Sandro Botticelli— 
Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 31 (1885), p. 404; 32 (1885), p. 43. 

LIPPMANN, FRrepricu: Sandro Botticellis Zeichnungen zu Dantes Gottlicher 
Komddie (Einfithrung), Berlin, 1887. 

STRZYGOWSKI, JOSEF: Die acht Zeichnungen des Sandro Botticelli zu Dantes 
Gottlicher Komédie im Vatikan. Berlin, 1887. 

PératTk, ANDRE: Dessins inédits de Sandro Botticelli pour illustrer l’Enfer 
de Dante—Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 35 (1887), p. 196. 


171 





INDEX 


Aaron, Fresco, Rome, Sixtine Chapel, 76-8, 
80, 82, 83, 101 (Plate x1) 
Abdy, Sir William, Paris (Collection), 124 


Adoration of the Kings (Benozzo Gozzoli), . 


Florence, Medici Chapel, 15 

— (about 1475), Florence, Uffizi, 15, 16, 39, 
40, 41-7, 49, 65, 79, 81, 84, 85, 87, 101, 
152, 157, 158 (Plates xx, xx1) 

— (1510), Florence, Uffizi, 139, 140 (Plate 
LXXVI1) 

— (Leonardo da Vinci), 140 

—, London, National Gallery (Horizontal 
Panel), 12-13, 14, 25, 30, 41, 127 (Plate 
TII) 

—, London, National Gallery (Tondo), 13-14, 
15-16, 25, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 81, 100, 127 
(Plate Iv) 

—, Petrograd, Hermitage Gallery, 39-41, 158, 
161 (Plate x1x) 

—, Richmond, Cook Collection, 13—14. 

Adoration of the Child, London, National 
Gallery, 107, 117, 130, 134-6, 138, 140, 
141, 146, 147, 160 (Plates LxxIv, xciz1) 

—, Piacenza Gallery (School Work), 107 

Alberti, Leon Battista, 114 

Albertini, 1 

Albizzi, Giovanna degli, 81, 92-4 (Plates 
XLVI, XLVII) ~ 

Alexander VI, Pope, 119, 120 

Altarpiece, Virgin Enthroned with Six Saints, 
for Sant’ Ambrogio, Florence, a, 
36—8 (Plate xvm1) 

—,—, for San Barnaba, Florence, Uffizi, 40, 

84, 107—9, 110, 157, 160, 161 (Plate 
LV 

—, Madonna with the Two Saints John, 

Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, 109-11, 
- 157 (Plate Lv1) 

Altenburg, Lindemann Museum, Profile Por- 
trait of Caterina Sforza (?), 88-9 (Plate 
XLIV) 

Ambrose, St. 
(Plate Lv) 

Ambrosiana, Milan, Madonna del Latte, 124 
(Plate Lx1m1) 

Amico di Sandro, 64, 99, 127 

Angelico, Fra, 6, 136 

Anghiari, Battle Cartoon (Leonardo), 155 

Anne, St., with Two Others, Rosselli, Berlin, 
Kaiser Friedrich Museum, 37 


(Madonna Enthroned), 109 


Annunciation, Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich 
Museum (School Work), 113 
—,—, Huldschinsky Collection, 113, 126 
(Plate Lxvit) 
—, Florence, Monasterio di San Martino 


(Fresco), 113 


—,—, Uffizi (San Maria Maddalena dei 
Pazzi), 36, 112, 113, 126 (Plate 
LVIII) 
—, Glasgow, Museum, 113, 141 (Plate 
LXXXIX) 


Anonimo Gaddiano, 1, 34, 39, 123, 124, 154 
Apelles, 113-16, 139, 159 (Plate trx) 
Architecture, Treatment of, 6-7, 13, 19, 21, 
25-6, 35, 39, 41-2, 76, 78, 81, 83, 96, 109, 
115, 125, 126, 127, 158-9. 
Archivio Storico dell’ Arte (1889), 89 
Arimathea, Joseph of, 132 (Plate Lxxm11) 
Aristotle, 53 
Arrabiati (Compagnacci), 120 
Arras, Tapestry Designs, 164 
Arts and Crafts, Influenced by Botticelli, 123, 
164-5 
Assumption, see Madonna 
Athene, with the Centaur, Florence, Pitti 
Palace, 94-5 (Plate xiIx) 
—, Drawing, Florence, Uffizi, 38 (Plate xx11) 
—, Tapestry, 36, 164 
Augustine, St., in his Study, Florence, Uffizi, 
125 (Plate Lxv1) 
—, — (Madonna Enthroned), Florence, Uffizi, 
109 (Plate Lv) 
—, —, Fresco, Florence, Ognissanti, 73, 74, 
159, 161 (Plate xxxv) 
—, — (Coronation of the Virgin), Florence, 
Uffizi, 105, 109, 111 (Plate Lv) 
Aynard, Sale, Paris, The Divine Punishment 
of Florence, 136—8 (Plate Lxxv) 


Bacchus, Procession of, Engraving after 
Botticelli’s Design, 165 

Background, Treatment of, 35, 38, 159 

Balbi Palace, Genoa, St. Jerome (School 
Work), 124 

Baldovinetti, 35 

Bande Nere, Giovanni delle, 50 

Bandini, Bernardo, 48 


173 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Barberini Gallery, Annunciation (now in the 
Huldschinsky Collection, Berlin), 113, 
126 (Plate Lxviz) 

Bardi Chapel in Santo Spirito, Madonna with 
the Two Saints John (now in the Kaiser 
Friedrich Museum, Berlin, 109-11, 157 
(Plate Lv1) 

Bargello, Florence, Giotto’s Frescoes, 89 

—,—, Bust of Giovanni de’ Medici (Mino da 

Fiesole), 85 

—,—, Facade, Pazzi Portraits, 48 

Barnabaéa Madonna, Florence, Uffizi, 84, 107— 
9, 110, 157, 160 (Plate Lv) 

Barnabas, St. (Madonna Enthroned with Six 
Saints, Florence, Uffizi), 109 (Plate Lv) 

Battistero, Florence (Fra Filippo’s Madonna, 
Munich), 19 

Bayersdorfer, 55 

Beatrice, Representations of (illustrations of 
the Divina Commedia), 146, 148, 149 

Bellini, 28 

Bellosguardo, Villa belonging to Sandro and 
Simone Botticelli, 9, 138 

Benci, Ginevra de’ (Leonardo da Vinci), 60 

Benozzo, see Gozzoli 

Berenson, Bernard, 64, 127 

Bergamo, Gallery, Portrait of Giuliano de’ 
Medici (Copy), 49 

—,—, Scenes from the Life of Virginia, 128— 

9, 140 (Plate Lxx) 
Berlin, Huldschinsky Collection, Annuncia- 
tion, 113, 126 (Plate Lxvm) 
—, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Adoration of 
the Child (Fra Filippo), 60 
—,—, Annunciation (School Work), 113 
—,—, Madonna with the Two Saints John, 
109-11, 157 (Plate Lv1) 

—,—, Madonna with Seven Angels Bearing 
Candlesticks, 106 (Plate Liv) 

—,—, Portrait of Giuliano de’ Medici, 49 
(Plate xx111) 

—,—, Raczynski Madonna, 79, 101, 103, 104, 
105, 160, 166 (Plate 1) 

—,—, Saint Sebastian, 33, 34, 35, 57, 68, 81, 
157 (Plate xvi) 

—,—, Young Florentine, 88 

—,—, Venus, 70—1, 157 (Plate xxx1m1) 

—, Kappel Collection, Portrait of Simonetta, 
63—4 (Plate xxv1) 

—, Kupferstichkabinett, Dante Illustrations, 
142 

Bernard, St. (Fra Filippo, Adoration of the 
Child, Berlin), 60 

Berry, Duc de, 36 

Bertoldo, 51, 153 

Bethulia, 31 

Bianca Capello, Grand Duchess, 31 

Bicci, Neri di, 91 

Billi, Francesco, 1 

Bini, Lucrezia di Piero di Giovanni, 95—7, 129 
(Plate Lx) 

Biographical Studies of Botticelli, 2—4 

Birth of Venus, 4, 50, 51, 55, 59, 66, 69-72, 73, 
93, 108, 156 (Plate xxx11) 


174 


Boccaccio, 53 

—, Illustrations for the Tale of Nastagio 
degli Onesti, Florence, Pucci Gallery (now 
in private collections), 95-7, 129 (Plate 
LX) 

Bocchi, 101 

Bologna, 119 

Boreas (in ‘‘ Spring ”’), 56, 59 (Plate xxv) 

Borghese Gallery, Rome, Madonna with St. 
John and Angels, 104—5 (Plate L111) 

Borgia, Alexander (Pope), 119, 120 

—, Cesare, 120 

—, Appartamento (Pinturicchio’s 
buoni picture), 92 

Bosch, Hieronymus (Illustrations of the 
Divine Comedy), 145 

Boston, Gardner Collection, Life of Lucretia, 
96, 128, 129, 141 

—, —, Chigi Madonna, 18, 23—4, 28, 99, 105, 

158 (Plate x11) 

Botticelli, Antonio (Brother, Goldsmith), 10 

—, Family, 7-11, 152, 153 

—, Giovanni (Brother), 7, 8, 9, 10 

—, Mariano (Father), 7, 9, 11, 152 

—, Origin of Name, 9 

—, Portrait of Himself (?), 44, 152 (Plates xx, 


Torna- 


XXI) 
—., Portrait (Filippino), 44-5, 84, 155 (Plate 


II) 

—, Simone (Brother), 7, 10, 118, 119, 120, 151, 
153, 154 

—, Smeralda (Mother), 11 

Botticini, Francesco, 91 

Bourgeois Sale (1904), see Cologne 

Brancacci Chapel, Frescoes (Filippino’s Por- 
trait of Botticelli), 44—5, 84, 155 (Plate 1) 

Bronze Plaque, about 1475, Berlin, Kaiser 
Friedrich Museum (Plate xxxiIv) 

Bronzino, 102, 162 

Bucolics by Lorenzo de’ Medici, 159 

Bugiardini, 162 

Buonvicini, Domenico, 135 

Burchiello, Domenico, 87 

Burckhardt, Cicerone, 1, 4, 18 

Burgundy, Philip the Good of, 36 

Burne-Jones, 2 


Call of Moses, Fresco, Rome, Sixtine Chapel, 
77, 81-2 (Plate xxxvm) 

Calumny of Apelles, Florence, Uffizi, 55, 113— 
15, 159 (Plate Lrx) 

Camposanto, Pisa, Commission for a Fresco, 
37 . 

Capitals, Treatment of, 21, 26, 39, 126 

Capponi Collection, 124 

Cardinal Virtues, Fresco, Lemmi, 
Louvre, 92, 93, 94 (Plate x1v1) 

Carmine Frescoes (Filippino’s Portrait of 
Botticelli), 44, 45, 84, 155 (Plate 1) 

Carrara Gallery, Bergamo, Virginia Panel, 
95-7, 129 (Plate Lx) 

Cascina, Battle Cartoon (Michelangelo), 155 

Cassone Panels, 12, 127, 129 

Castagno, Andrea del, 5, 6, 36, 48, 86—7, 89 


P aris, 


INDEX 


Castello Frescoes, 119 
—, Villa, Florence, 50, 69, 119, 153 
Catherine, St., Sant’ Ambrogio Madonna, 
Florence, Uffizi, 36 (Plate xv) 
—,—,San Barnab&a Madonna, Florence, 
Uffizi, 107-8 (Plate tv) 
Cattaneo (Simonetta’s Family), 72 
—, Gaspare (Simonetta’s Father), 61 
Cavalcaselle, 2, 16, 36, 
Centaur (with Minerva), Florence, Palazzo 
Pitti, 38, 94-5 (Plate xir1x) 
Chantilly, Filippino’s Esther Panels, 127 
—, Piero di Cosimo’s Portrait of Simonetta, 
61, 129 (Plate xxv1z) 
Charles VIII, Entry into Florence, 148 
Chigi Madonna, Boston, Gardner Collection, 
18, 23—4, 28, 30, 99, 105, 158 (Plate x11) 
—, Prince, Rome (Tondo of the Madonna), 107 
Christ, Representations of : 
—,—, Pieta, Milan, Poldi-Pezzoli Gallery, 
131, 160 (Plate Lxx111) 
—,—,—, Munich, Pinakothek, 131-3 (Plate 
LXXI1) 
—, —, — (Ghirlandajo), Florence, Ognissanti, 
Fresco, 73—4 
—,—, Punishment of Florence, Paris, Ay- 
nard Sale, 136—8 (Plate Lxxv) 
—, —, Baptism (Verrocchio), 31, 34 
—, before Pilate (Engraving after Botticelli’s 
Design), 165 
—, Preparation, Temptation, and Parting 
from the Angels (Cleansing of the Leper 
Fresco), Rome, Sixtine Chapel, 77, 78— 
$ 80, 93 (Plate xxxv1) 
Oicerone (Burckhardt), 1, 4, 18 
Classical Subjects, 25, 52-9, 67—8, 70, 94—5, 
113-16, 129 
Cleansing of the Leper, Fresco, Rome, Sixtine 
Chapel, 77, 78—80, 93 (Plate xxxv1) 
Cleopatra (?) Portrait of Simonetta by Piero 
di Cosimo, 62—3, 129 (Plate xxvm) 
Cloak, Virgin with the, Ghirlandajo, Florence, 
Ognissanti, 74 
Colleoni Monument, 90 
Cologne, Bourgeois Sale, School Copy of the 
Pieta, 132 ; 
Colour technique, 27-8, 37, 42, 102, 110-11, 
165-6 
Colvin, Sir Sidney, 134 
Compagnacci (Arrabiati), 120 
Conservatorio della Quiete, Florence, 107 
Constantine, Arch of (Aaron Fresco), 83 
(Plate x1) 
Conversion of St. Paul (Engraving after 
Botticelli’s Design), 165 
Cook Collection, Richmond, Adoration of the 
Kings, 13, 14 
— —~,—, Descent of the Holy Ghost, 133 
— —, —, Fancy Portrait of Simonetta, 63, 64 
(Plate xxx) 
Copies, see Pupils of Botticelli 
Copper, Engraving on, Assumption (after a 
Design of Botticelli’s), Florence, Uffizi, 
37, 133, 165 (Plate Lxxv1) 


Coronation of the Virgin, Florence, Uffizi, 
105, 111, 123, 136, 146, 160 (Plates 
LVII, XC) 

—,—,Conservatorio della Quiete (School 

Work), 106—7 

—, Milan, Poldi-Pezzoli Gallery, Tapestry 
after a Design of Botticelli’s, 164 

Corsini, Duke, 91 

—-, Palace, Florence, Madonna (School Work), 
22-3, 25, 106 (Plate xv1) 


Cosimo, Piero di, Portrait of Simonetta, 


Chantilly, Museum, 61, 129 
(Plate xxv) 

Cosmas, St. (Sant’ Ambrogio Madonna, 
Florence, Uffizi), 37-8 (Plate xv1m1) 

Cranach, Lucas, 71, 122, 138 

Credi, Lorenzo di, 121 

Cupid (in “ Spring ’’), 56, 58 (Plate xxv) 


62, 63, 


Damian, St. (Madonna Enthroned with Six 
Saints, Florence, Uffizi), 37, 38, 40 
(Plate xv111) 

—,Engravings (in Landini’s Dante Com- 
mentary), 143, 150, 165 

—, Illustrations to the Divine Comedy, 3, 66, 
106, 108, 119, 120, 122, 142-9, 150, 160, 
161 

—, Influence of, 53, 54, 89, 106, 116 

Dante, Portrait of, 89 

David, King (Dante Illustrations), 146—7 

—, Michelangelo, 138 

Descent of the Holy Ghost, Richmond, Cook 
Gallery, 133, 161 

Desiderio, Madonna Reliefs, 22 

Diamante, Fra, 11-12, 76 

Divine Comedy, Illustrations, 
Illustrations 

Divine Punishment of Florence, 
Aynard Sale, 136—8 (Plate Lxxv) 

Dolci, Giovanni de’ Building of the Sixtine 
Chapel, 75 

Domenico Veneziano, 34, 158 

Donatello, 5, 24, 28, 109, 154. 

Douglas, Langton, 136 

Draping, 13, 15, 17, 26 

Dresden Gallery, Miracles of St. Zenobius, 128 

Ducale, Pallazo, Urbino, Mosaic over a Door, 
after a Design of Botticelli’s, 39 

Direr, 138 


see Dante, 


Paris, 


Eligius, St. (Coronation of the Virgin, Flor- 
ence, Uffizi), 111 (Plate Lv1) 

Este, Isabella d’, 91, 139 

Esther Panels, Filippino (Chantilly, Florence, 
and Vienna), 127 


Farnese, Alessandro (Portrait in the Aaron 
Fresco), 84 (Plate x1) 

Female Portraits, 49, 60—7, 70-2, 87, 88—9 
(Plates XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, Xxx, 
XLIII, XLIV, LXI1) 

Ferrara, School of Painting, 102 

Fiesole, Mino da, 75 


175 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Filangieri Museum, Naples, Portrait of a 
Young Man, 89 
Filippepi, see Botticelli 
Filippino, see Lippi, Filippino 
Filippo, see Lippi, Filippo 
Finiguerra, Antonio, Goldsmith, 8, 10 
—, Maso, Engraver, 8 
Flora (in “ Spring ’’), 56, 65 (Plate xxv) 
Florence, Academy (Perugino, Pieta), 131-2 
—, Sant’ Ambrogio (Madonna Enthroned 
with Six Saints, Uffizi), 36, 37 
—, Bargello (Frescoes), 48, 89 
—, — (Bust of Giovanni de’ Medici, Mino da 
Fiesole), 85 
—, San Barnaba (Madonna Enthroned with 
Six Saints, Uffizi), 84, 110 
—, Battistero (Fra Filippo, Madonna, Mun- 
ich), 19 
—, Carmine, Filippino’s Fresco (Portrait of 
Botticelli), 44-5, 84 (Plate 11) 
—., Villa Castello, 50, 69, 119 
—, Chigi Palace (Gardner Madonna), 18, 23- 
4, 30 (Plate x111) 
—, Conservatorio della Quiete, Coronation of 
the Virgin (School Work), 106—7 
—, Corsini Palace (Madonna with Six Angels), 
22-3, 25 (Plate xv1) 
—, Francesco al Monte (Madonna Raczynski, 
Berlin), 79, 101—5 
—, Frediano, Porta San, Botticelli’s Villa, 9, 
118 
——, Innocenti Hospital (Madonna), 18 
—, Lemmi Villa (Frescoes), 81, 90, 92—4 
—, Marco, San (Monastery), 51, 117, 153 
—,— (Coronation of the Virgin, Uffizi), 111, 
123 
—, — (Lorenzo’s Art School), 51, 153 
—, Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi, Santa 
(Annunciation, Uffizi), 26, 112, 123, 126 
—, Maria Maggiore, Santa (Pieta, Poldi- 
‘Pezzoli Collection, Milan), 133 
—,— (St. Sebastian, Berlin, Kaiser Fried- 
rich Museum), 34 
—, Maria Novella, Santa, 42 
—, Maria Nuova, Santa (Frescoes), 19, 20, 34 
—, Mercanzia, 12 (Fortitudo, q.v.) 
—, Monasterio di San Martino (Annuncia- 
tion Fresco), 113 : 
—, Ognissanti Church, 9, 73, 161 
—, —, Botticelli’s Grave, 151 
—, — (St. Augustine Fresco), 73, 74, 159, 161 
(Plate xxxv) 
—,— (St. Jerome, Ghirlandajo), 73, 74 
—, Paolino, San, 153 
— Pitti Palace (Pallas with the Centaur), 38, 
94-5 
—,— (Virgin and Child with St. John), 131 
—, Pitti Gallery (Portrait of a Lady), 88 
—,— (Portrait of a Youth), 87, 88 (Plate 
. XXXIX) 
—, Pucci Gallery (Boccaccio Panels), 95—7 
—,Spirito, Santo (Madonna with the Two 
Saints John), small Altarpiece, Berlin, 
109-12 


176 


Florence, Trinita, Santa (Ghirlandajo’s Fres- 
coes), 43 

—, Vecchio, Palazzo (Decoration), 75, 84, 90, 
120 

—, Zenobius Chapel (Mosaics), 118, 128 

Forli, Melozzo da, 92 

Fortezza, see Fortitudo 

Fortitudo, Florence, Uffizi, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 
20, 27, 30, 31, 42, 58, 66, 158 (Plate v) 

Fra Angelico, 6, 136 

Frames, Treatment of, 20, 21-2, 100, 103, 112, 
123, 165 

Francesca, Piero della, 6, 35, 158 

Francesco al Monte, San, Florence (Madonna 
Raczynski), 101 

Franciabigio, 162 

Francis of Assisi, St., 79 

Frankfort, Staedel Museum (Portrait of 
Simonetta), 63—4 (Plate xxrIx) 

Frediano, Porta San, Florence (Botticelli’s 
Villa), 9, 118 

Frescoes, Camposanto, Pisa, 37 

—,Carmine (Filippino’s Portrait of Botti- 
celli), 44—5, 84, 155 (Plate 11) 

—, Castello, Villa, Florence, 119 

—, Palazzo Vecchio (Ghirlandajo), 75-90 

—,Sixtine Chapel, Aaron’s Punishment of 
the Rebellious, 76—8, 161 (Plate x1) 

—,—, Cleansing of the Leper, 77, 78-80, 93 

(Plate xxxvi) 
—,—, Legends of Moses, 77, 81-2 (Plate 
XXXVII) 

—, St. Augustine, Florence, Ognissanti, 73, 
74, 159, 161 (Plate xxxv) 

—, St. Jerome (Ghirlandajo), Florence, Ognis- 
santi, 73, 74 

—, Villa Lemmi, 81, 90, 92-4 (Plate xLvz) 

—, Villa Spedaletto, 91 

Frizzoni, Gustavo, 62, 89 

Furniture Panels, 164 


Gaddi, see Anonimo 

Gallo, Giuliano di San, 22, 26, 109 

Gardner Collection, Boston, Chigi Madonna, 
18, 22-4, 26, 30, 99, 105, 158 (Plate x11) 

—,—, Scenes from the Life of Lucretia, 96, 

128, 129, 141 

Genoa, Balbi Palace, St. Jerome (School 
Work), 124 

Ghiberti, 28 ’ 

Ghirlandajo, Domenico, 2, 6, 14, 43, 73, 74, 75, 
84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 108, 118, 157 

—, Adoration of the Kings, Florence, Uffizi, 
14 

—., Frescoes in Santa Trinita, Florence, 43 

—, St. Jerome, Florence, Ognissanti, 74 

—, Portrait of Giovanna degli Albizzi, New 
York, Pierpont Morgan Collection, 92 

Giostra, Florentine Tournament in 1475, 55 

—, Poliziano’s Ode, 55, 56, 57, 60, 65, 70 

Giotto, 6, 89, 93, 138 

—, Portrait of Dante in the Bargello Fresco, 
89 

Giovanni, Bartolommeo di, 96 


INDEX 


Giovanni, Bertoldo di, 51, 153 

Glasgow Museum, Annunciation, 113, 141 
(Plate LxxxIx) 

Gothic Elements, 15, 25 

Gozzoli, Benozzo, 6, 15, 38, 44 

—, —, Frescoes in the Medici Chapel (Adora- 

tion of the Kings), 15, 44 

—, Portrait of Himself, 44 

Graces (in “Spring’’), 56, 58, 59, 70, 157 
(Plates xxv, xci1) 

Group Paintings, Dutch, 157 

Guardaroba of Duke Cosimo de’ Medici, 61, 88 

Guardi, Benedetto di Ser Giovanni, 112 


Hair, Dressing of (Acconciatura), 26—7, 58, 63, 
64, 65, 71, 164 

Halo, Treatment of, 20, 27-8 

Hell, Representations of (Divine Comedy), 
145 


Hermitage Gallery, Petrograd, q.v. 

Heseltine, Mr. J. P., London, Madonna, 107 

Holbein, Hans, 165 

Holofernes Panel, Discovery of the Corpse, 
Florence, Uffizi, 31, 32, 33, 38, 40—2, 125 
(Plate xv) 

Horne, Herbert, 3, 8, 12, 15, 16, 39, 43, 44, 50, 
51, 61, 62, 64, 65,75, 77, 78, 84, 86, 94, 95, 
99, 101, 112, 126, 128, 129, 130, 133, 136, 
140, 145 

Huldschinski, O., Berlin, Annunciation, 113, 
126 (Plate Lxvi1) 

Humanism, Influence of, 51, 52, 53, 54, 113, 
115 


Inferno, 143-9 

Innocenti Madonna, 18, 25 

Ionides Collection (London, Victoria and 
Albert Museum), Portrait of a Lady, 87 
(Plate xx111) 

Intarsia Panels (Mosaic), 129, 159, 164 

Interiors, Treatment of, 113, 159 


Jahn-Rusconi, 103 

Jerome, St. (Mourning for Christ, Munich, 
Alte Pinakothek), 132 (Plate Lxxvi1) 

— (Ghirlandajo), 73, 74 

— (Coronation of the Virgin, 
Uffizi), 111 (Plate Lv1) 

— (Leonardo da Vinci), 95 

— (Last Communion, New York, Metro- 
politan Museum), 124 (Plate Lxv) 

— (School Work, Balbi Palace, Genoa), 124 

— (School Work, Private Collection in 
U.S.A.), 124 

John, St., Baptist, Representations of 
(Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Mad- 
onna with the Two Saints John), 109-10 
(Plate Lv1) 

— (Florence, Uffizi, Madonna with Six 
Saints), 109, 161 (Plate Lv) 

John, St., Evangelist, Representations of 
(Coronation of the Virgin, Florence, 
Uffizi), 111 (Plate Lv1) 

— (Madonna with the Two Saints John, 


12 


Florence, 


Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum), 109- 
10, 187 (Plate Lv1) 

John, St., as a Boy (Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich 
Museum, Madonna), 104, 105 (Plate L1v) 

— (Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Madonna), 107 

— (Early Madonna Paintings), 99 

— (Paris, Louvre, Madonna), 23 (Plate x11) 

Johnson Collection, Philadelphia, Portrait of 
Lorenzo Lorenzano, 88 (Plate Lxx1) 

—,—, Mary Magdalene Predella Panels, 126~ 

7 (Plate LXxxv1) 

Judith, Berlin, Kaufmann Sale, 125 

—, Florence, Uffizi, 30-1, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 
40, 66, 79, 123, 125 (Plate x1v) 

Julius II, Pope, 80 (Plate xxxv1) 

Justice of the Emperor Trajan (Dante 
Drawings), 147-8 


Kahn, Otto H., Gallery, New York, Portrait 
of Giuliano de’ Medici, 49 (Plate xxtv) 

Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin, see Berlin 

Kann, Rudolf, Collection, Paris, Portrait of a 
Man, 86 (Plate xxxvii1) 

Kappel, M., Collection, Berlin, Portrait of 
Simonetta, 63—4 (Plate xxv1) 

Korah, Punishment of the Company of 
(Aaron Fresco), Rome, Sixtine Chapel, 
76, 77, 82, 83, 161 (Plate xz) 

Kristeller, Paul, 165 


Laetus, Pomponius (Portrait in the Aaron 
Fresco), 84 (Plate x1) 

Lama, Guasparo di Zanobi del, 43, 46 

—, Portrait (Adoration of the Kings, Flor- 
ence, Uffizi), 43, 46 (Plate xx) 

Landini, Dante Commentary (with Engrav- 
ings after Botticelli), 143, 150, 165 

Landscape, Treatment of, 15, 19, 25, 35, 39- 
40, 76, 77, 114, 158, 159 

Lemmi Frescoes, Paris, Louvre, 81, 90, 92—4 
(Plates XLV, XLVI) 

—, Villa, 81, 92 

Leonardo da Vinci, 5, 28, 29, 35, 48, 58, 60, 77, 
90, 95, 113, 114, 140, 147, 155, 157, 159, 
162, 163, 164, 166 

Leper, Cleansing of, see Cleansing of the 
Leper 

Leuchtenberg, Duke of (Gallery), Portrait of 
a Young Man (now in the Dr. E. Simon 
Collection, Berlin), 87 (Plate Lx1) 

Liberal Arts, Lemmi Fresco, 92, 94 (Plate 
XLV) 

Liechtenstein Gallery, Portrait of a Youth 
(now in a private collection in U.S.A.), 86 
(Plate x11) 

Light, Treatment of, 34—5, 158-9 

Lippi, Filippino, 12, 13, 26, 44-5, 76, 84, 90, 
91, 99, 108, 127, 139, 155, 157 

—,—, Portrait of Botticelli (Carmine Fres- 

coes), 44—5, 84, 155 (Plate 1) 

—,—, Portrait of Himself, 45 

Lippi, Fra Filippo, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 
18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 41, 60, 74, 87, 
99, 125, 165 

177 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Lippi, Fra Filippo, Adoration of the Kings, 
Richmond, Cook Collection, 13, 14 
—,—, Madonna, Florence, Uffizi, 18 (Plate 


VI 
London, Heseltine Collection, School Work, 


—, Mond Collection, Scenes from the Life of 
St. Zenobius, 128, 129 (Plates Lxvim, 
LXIXx) 

—, National Gallery, Adoration of the Kings, 
Horizontal Panel, 12, 14, 16, 25, 30, 34, 
41, 127 (Plate 11) 

—, —, —, Tondo, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 25, 35, 39, 

40, 41, 81, 99, 127 (Plate 1v) 

—,—, Adoration of the Child, 107, 134, 140 

(Plate LxxiIv) 

—,—, Early Botticelli Madonnas, 18, 20 

—,—, Mars and Venus, 67—9 (Plate xxx1) 

—, —, St. Sebastian (A. Pollajuolo), 34 

—,—, Virgin Crowned by Two Angels, 107 

—,—, Youth with a Red Cap, 85, 86 (Plate 

XLI 

—, Seymour, Alfred, Collection, Portrait of 
Dante, 89 

—, Victoria and Albert Museum, Portrait of 
a Young Woman, 87 (Plate xim1) 

—-, Vernon Watney Collection, Tale of Nas- 
tagio degli Onesti, 95-6, 129 (Plate Lx) 

Lorenzano, Lorenzo, Portrait, Philadelphia, 
Johnson Collection, 88 (Plate Lxx1) 

Louvre, see Paris, Louvre 

Lucian, 113, 114, 115 

Lucretia Panels, Boston, Gardner Collection, 
96, 128, 129, 141 

Luther, 122, 138 


Madonnas, Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, 
Madonna with the Two Saints John, 109— 
11, 157 (Plate Lv1) 

—,—,—, Madonna with Seven Angels Bear- 

ing Candlesticks, 106 (Plate Lrv) 

—,—,—, Madonna Raczynski, 79, 101-3, 

104, 105, 160, 166 (Plate 1) 

—, Boston, Gardner Collection, Madonna 
Chigi, 18, 23-4, 26, 30, 99, 105, 158 
(Plate x11) 

—, Florence, Palazzo Corsini, 22—3, 25, 106 
(Plate xv1) 

—,—, Palazzo Pitti, Virgin with St. John, 

131 
—, —, Uffizi, Sant’ Ambrogio Madonna (with 
Six Saints), 36, 37 (Plate xv1m1) 
—,—, —, Assumption (Engraving after Bot- 
ticelli’s Design), 37, 133, 165 
(Plate Lxxv1) 
—, —, —, Coronation, 105, 111, 123, 136, 146, 
160 (Plates Lv1I, XC) _ 
—,-—, —, del Melagrano, 87, 102-3, 104, 105, 
108 (Plate 11) 
—, —, —, Madonna in a Cloud of Cherubim, 
20 (Plate x) 
—,—, —, Magnificat, 103—4 (Plate x1r) 
—,——,—, Rosebush, 21-2, 25 (Plate x1) 


178 


a 


Madonnas, Florence, Uffizi, San Barnaba 
Madonna (with Six Saints), 84, 
107-9, 110, 157, 160 (Plate Lv) 
—,—,—, with St. John and Angels, 19-20 
(Plate viz) 
—, London, Mr. J. P. Heseltine, Virgin with 
St. John (School Work), 107 
—,—, National Gallery, Adoration of the 
Child, 107, 134 (Plate Lxxtv) 
—, Milan, Ambrosiana, Madonna del Latte, 
124 (Plate Lx111) 
—,—, Poldi-Pezzoli Gallery, Coronation, 
Tapestry after Botticelli’s Design, 164 
—,—,—, Madonna, 123—4 (Plate Lxrv) 
—, Naples, Gallery, Madonna with Two 
Angels, 19, 25, 105 (Plate vi1z) 
—, Paris, Louvre, Madonna with Five 
Angels, 20 (Plate rx) 
—,—,—, Madonna with the Little St. John, 
23 (Plate x11) 
—,—, eer André, Rest During the Flight, 
31 
—, Piacenza Gallery, Adoration of the Child 
(School Work), 107 
—, Pisa, Commission for Fresco, Assumption, 
37 


—, Rome, Borghese Gallery, Madonna with 
St. John and Angels, 104, 105, 106 
(Plate L111) 

—, —, Guidi Madonna, 19 

—, Turin, Gallery, Madonna Sitting on the 
Ground (School Work), 107 

—, see also Adoration of the Child 

Madonna Reliefs, 22, 28, 100 

Madonna, Representations in Florence (first 
half of fifteenth century), 28-9 

Magdalene, St. (Madonna Enthroned, Flo- 
rence, Uffizi), 36 (Plate xv11) 

Magnificat, Florence, Uffizi, 103-4 (Plate tm) 

Majano, Giuliano da, 26 

Majolica Painting, Early Florentine, 124 

Malatesta, Francesco, 139 

Mantegna, 28 

Marco, San, Monastery, Florence (Coronation 
of the Virgin), 111, 123 

—,—, Lorenzo’s Art School, 51, 153 

—-, —, Prior of (Savonarola), 117 

Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi, Santa, Florence 
(Annunciation, Uffizi), 36, 112, 123, 126, 
see also Annunciation 

Maria Maggiore, Santa, Florence (Mourning 
for Christ, Poldi-Pezzoli Collection, 
Milan), 133 

—,— (St. Sebastian, Berlin, Kaiser Fried- 

rich Museum), 34 

Maria Novella, Santa, Florence (Adoration, 
Uffizi), 42 

Maria Nuova, Santa, Florence (Madonna, 
Uffizi), 19, 20 

—,— (Frescoes by Domenico Veneziano), 34 

Mars and Venus, London, National Gallery, 
67-8, 93, 156, 157 (Plate xxx1) 

Martino, Monasterio di San, Florence, An- 
nunciation Fresco, 113 


INDEX 


Maruffi, Sylvestre, 135 

Mary Magdalene, Predella Panels, Philadel- 
phia, Museum, 126 (Plate Lxxxvi) 

Masaccio, 5, 6 

Medallions (Niccolo Sforzore, Portraits of 
Lorenzo Tornabuoni and Giovanna degli 
Albizzi) (Plates xLv1I and xLvm1) 

Medici, Alessandro, 150 

—, Cosimo (Pater Patriz), 41, 43, 48, 50, 52, 
53 


— (Portrait), 40, 43 (Plates xrx, xx) 

— (Grand Duke), 50, 61 

—, Giovanni, 43, 85, 119, 145 

—,— (delle Bande Nere), 50 

—,— di Pierfrancesco, 50, 51, 89, 94 

—, Giuliano, 37, 45, 46, 48, 49, 55, 60, 61, 71, 
75, 97 

— (Portrait), 37, 45, 46, 48, 49, 55, 60, 61, 65, 
66, 71, 74, 97 (Plates xvi, xx, XXI, 
XXIII, XXIV) 

-—, Lorenzo il Magnifico, 6, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 
48-53, 55, 61, 75, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 113, 
117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 128, 140, 142, 
143, 150, 153, 155, 159 

—,— (Portrait), 43, 44, 46 (Plate xx1) 

—,— (Cousin of the Magnifico), 94 

—, —, di Pierfrancesco, 51, 119, 120, 142-5 

—, Pierfrancesco, 50 

—, Pierino, 85 

— Piero (Portrait), 40, 43, 50, 118 (Plate xx) 

—., Portraits, see Portraits, Medici 

—, Banner, Decoration of, 38 

— (Chapel), 15 

—, Emblem, 64 

— (Family), 43, 51, 118, 122, 157 

Medici Venus, 70 

Melagrano, Madonna del, see Madonna 

Memoriale (Albertini), 1 

Mercanzia, Florence, 12, 17, see also Fortitudo 

Mercury (in “Spring ’’), 56, 57, 59, 60 (Plate 
XXvV) 

Mesnil, Jacques, 43, 46 

Metropolitan Museum, New York, Double 
Portrait (Filippo), 87 

—,—, Last Communion of St. Jerome, 124 

(Plate Lxv) 

Michael, Archangel (Madonna Enthroned, 
Florence, Uffizi), 108—9, 161 (Plate Lv) 

Michelangelo, 5, 77, 83, 100, 119, 121, 132, 
138, 139, 142, 155, 162, 163, 166 

—, Cascina Cartoon, 155 

-—, David, 138 

—, Drawings for the Divine Comedy, 142 

Milan, Ambrosiana, Madonna del Latte, 124 
(Plate Lx111) 

—, Coronation (Tapestry after Botticelli’s 
Design), 164 

—, Madonna, 123—4 (Plate Lx1x) 

—, Poldi-Pezzoli Gallery, Pieta, 
(Plate Lxx111) 

Minerva, Drawing, Florence, Uffizi, 39 (Plate 
XXII) 

-—— with the Centaur, Florence, Palazzo Pitti, 
38, 94-5 (Plate xLIx) 


131, 133 


Minerva, see also Pallas 

Miniatures, Burgundian French, 36 

Mino da Fiesole, 75, 85 

Mirandola, Pico della, 85, 121, 132 

Mond Collection, London, Zenobius Panels, 
128, 129 (Plates LXxXvIII, LXxIx) 

Montelupo, Baccio da, 121 

Morelli, 2, 12, 16, 18, 36, 85, 86, 99, 101, 104, 
133 

Morgan, Pierpont, Collection, New ‘York, 
Portrait of Giovanni degli Albizzi 
(Ghirlandajo), 92 

Mosaic Workers, Florentine, 118 

Mosaics, 118, 128 

Moses Fresco, Rome, Sixtine Chapel, 77, 81-2 
(Plate xxxviz1) 

Mourning for Christ, see Christ, Representa- 
tions of 

Munich, Old Pinakothek, Madonna (Filippo), 
19 

—,—, Mourning for Christ, 

(Plate Lxx11) 
Mysticism, 122, 158, 161-2 


131-3, 161 


Naples, Gallery, Madonna, 19, 25, 105 (Plate 


VIII) 

—, Museu Filangieri, Portrait of a Young 
Man, 89 

National Gallery, see London, National 
Gallery 


Nere, Giovanni delle Bande (Giovanni de’ 
Medici), 50 

New York, Metropolitan Museum, Double 
Portrait (Filippo), 87 

—,—, Last Communion of St. Jerome, 124 

(Plate Lxv) 

—, Otto H. Kahn Collection, Portrait of 
Giuliano de’ Medici, 40 

—, Pierpont Morgan Collection, Portrait of 
Giovanni degli Albizzi (Ghirlandajo), 92 


Ognissanti Church, Florence, 9, 73 

—, —, Botticelli’s Grave, 151 

—, —, Pieta (Ghirlandajo), 73 

—,—, St. Augustine, Fresco, 73, 74, 161 

(Plate xxxv) 

Old Dutch Influences, 36, 81 

Onesti, Nastagio degli (Boccaccio Panel, 
London, Vernon Watney Oollection), 
93-7 (Plate Lx) 3 

Oreithya, Nymph (in “Spring’’), 56, 59 
(Plate xxv) 

Orlandini, Palazzo, Florence (Adoration of 
the Kings, London, National Gallery), 
12, 13, 25, 30, 39, 127 (Plate Iv) 

Ornament, Treatment of, 25, 27-8, 164 

Orsanmichele, Florence, Design for a Canopy, 
164 

Orsini, Clarice, 88 

—~,—., Portrait (?), Florence, Pitti Gallery, 88 

(Plate Lx11) 
Outline, Treatment of, 161 


Paccioli, Luca, Mathematician, 112, 158 
179 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Pallas, with the Centaur, Palazzo Pitti, 38, 
94-5 (Plate XLIx) 

— (Banner), 38, 48 

— (Drawing), Florence, Uffizi, 39 (Plate 
XXII) 

— (Mosaic), Urbino, 39 

Papal Portraits, 80, 161 

Paradise, Representations of 
Comedy), 142—9 

Paris, Louvre, Portrait of a Youth, 87 (Plate 
LXXXV) 

—,—, Lemmi Frescoes (Tornabuoni), 81, 90, 

92, 97 (Plates XLV, XLVI) 
—,—, Madonna with Five Angels, 20 (Plate 


(Divine 


TX) 
—,—-, Madonna with the Little St. John, 23 
(Plate x11) 
—, Aynard Sale, The Divine Punishment of 
Florence, 136—8 (Plate Lxxx) 
—, Musée André, Rest during the Flight into 
Egypt, 131 
—, Rudolf Kann Collection, Portrait of a 
Man, 86 (Plate xxxvii1) 
Paul, St. (Mourning for Christ, Munich), 132 
(Plate Lxx11) 
Pazzi, Murderers of Giuliano de’ Medici, 46 
—, Portraits, Florence, Bargello Facade, 48 
Pericles, 6 
Perspective, Treatment of, 13, 14, 25, 112- 
13, 158-9 
Perugino, 1, 7, 75, 82, 91, 131, 139, 157, 158 
Peter, St., Crucifixion of, Carmine Fresco 
(Filippino), Portrait of Botticelli, 465. 
See also Botticelli 
—,— (Mourning for Christ, Munich), 132 
(Plate Lxx11) 
Petrarch, 53 
Petrograd, Hermitage Gallery, Adoration of 
the Kings, 39-41, 158, 161 (Plate xrx) 
Philadelphia, Museum (Johnson Collection), 
Scenes from the Life of Mary Magda- 
lene, 126—7 (Plates LXxxv1) 
—, —, —, Portrait of Lorenzo Lorenzano, 88 
(Plate Lxx1) 
Piacenza, Gallery, Adoration of the Child 
(School Work), 107 
Piagnoni, 117, 120 
Pieta, see Christ, Representations of 
—, Michelangelo, 132 
—, Perugino, Florence, Academy, 131-2 
Pinturrichio, 75, 92 
Pisa, Fresco Commission, 37 
Pisani, 93 
Pitti Palace, Florence, Athene Taming the 
Centaur, 38, 94-5 (Plate x1LrIx) 
—, —, Madonna with St. John, 131 
—, —, Pallas with the Centaur, 38 
—,—-, Portrait of Clarice Orsini (?), 87 (Plate 
LXIt) 
—, —, Portrait of a Youth in a Cappuccio, 87, 
88 (Plate xxxIx) 
Plaques (Plates xxxXIV, LXXXVI1) 
Plato, 53, 54, 116 
Poldi-Pezzoli Gallery, Milan, see Milan 


180 


Poliziano, Angelo, 45, 54—5, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 
66, 67, 70, 97, 121, 153 

Pollajuolo, Antonio, 6, 8, 16,{17, 18, 28, 30, 31, 
34, 35, 90, 92, 108, 146, 166 

—, Piero, 6, 12, 16, 17, 18, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 
90, 108, 166 

—, Simone, 16, 18, 28, 31, 35, 108, 121, 166 

Pomegranate Madonna, see Madonnas 

Pomegranate, Symbol of the Passion, 20, 21, 
24. 


Pontelli, Baccio, Pallas, Urbino, 
Palazzo Ducale, 39 
Pontormo, 162 
Popolano, Lorenzo, see Medici, Lorenzo di 
Pierfrancesco 
Porta, Baccio della, 121 
—, Bartolommeo della, 162 
Porto Venere (Genoa), 72 
Portrait, Albizzi, Giovanna degli, Lemmi 
Fresco, Paris, Louvre, 92—4 (Plate xLv1) 
—, Botticelli (by Filippino), Carmine Fresco, 
Florence, 44-5, 84, 155 (Plate 1) 
—,—, Portrait of Himself (?), 44, 152 (Plates 
XX, XXI) 
—, Dante, 89 
—, Likeness of a Man, Paris, Rudolf Kann 
Collection, 86 (Plate xxxXvIi1) 
—, Lorenzo Lorenzano, Philadelphia, Mus- 
eum, 88 (Plate Lxx1) 
—, Man against a Blue Background, Berlin, 
Dr. E. Simon Collection, 87 (Plate Lx1) 
—, Medici, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42-4, 49 (Plates 
XVIII, XIX, XX, XXIII, XXIV) 
—,—,Cosimo (Adoration of the Kings, 
Florence, Uffizi), 40, 43 (Plates x1x, 
xx) 
—,—, Giovanni (Adoration of the Kings, 
Florence, Uffizi), 43, 48 (Plate xx) 
—,—, Giuliano, 37, 49, 55, 61, 71, 74 (Plates 
EK, XXI, XX, SXIV, Ki 
—,—, Lorenzo (Adoration, Florence, Uffizi), 
42—4 (Plates xx, XX1) 
—,—, Piero (Adoration, Florence, Uffizi), 40, 
43 (Plate xx) 
—, Orsini, Clarice (?), Florence, Pitti Gallery, 
87 (Plate Lx11) 
—, Pazzi Family, Florence, Bargello Facade, 
48 


Mosaic, 


—, Sforza, Caterina (?), Altenburg, Museum, 
88-9 (Plate xLIv) 

—, Simonetta, q.v. 

—,Tornabuoni, Lorenzo, Paris, Louvre 
(Lemmi Fresco), 92—4 (Plate xiv) 

—, Young Lady in a Room, London, Victoria 
and Albert Museum, 87 (Plate xL111) 

—, Youth in a Cappuccio, Florence, Palazzo 
Pitti, 87-8 (Plate xxxIx) 

—, Youth with a Red Cap, London, National 
Gallery, 85 (Plate x11) 

—, Youth against a Black Background, 
Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, 88 
(Plate LXxXXvIII) 

—, Youth against a Blue Background, Paris, 
Louvre, 87 (Plate Lxxxv) 


INDEX 


Portrait, Youth before an Open Window, Pri- 
vate Collection in U.S.A., 86;(Plate xx11) 

Prato, Fra Filippo’s Frescoes in the Duomo, 
11-12, 74 

—, Santa Margherita Monastery, 11 

Predella Panels, Philadelphia, Museum, 
Johnson Collection (Scenes from the Life 
of Mary Magdalene), 126-7 (Plates 
LXXXVI1) 

Pre-Raphaelites, 2, 136 

Primavera, see Spring 

Pucci, Giacomo, 119 

—, Gianozzi, 95, 129 

—, Lucretia, 95 

—, Panel Paintings, 95-7 (Plate Lx) 

Pulci, 54, 55 

Punishment of the Company of Korah 
(Aaron Fresco), Rome, Sixtine Chapel, 
76, 77, 80, 82, 85, 161 (Plate xx) 

Purgatorio, see Purgatory 

Purgatory, Representations of (for the Divine 
Comedy), 66, 143—9 (Plate Lxxx1) 


Kaczynski Madonna, Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich 
Museum, 101-2, 103, 105, 166 (Plate L) 

Raphael, 29, 93, 100, 154, 157, 158 

Realm of Venus, see Spring 

Regency Pictures, Dutch, 157 

Rest during the Flight into Egypt, Paris, 
Musée André, 131 

Resurrection (Leonardo), 95 

Riario, Francesco, 89 

—, Girolamo (Portrait ?), 80 (Plate xxxv1) 

—., Sforza, Caterina, 80, 89, 119 

—,—, —, Portrait, Altenburg Museum, 88— 

9 (Plate xLIv) 

Richmond, Cook Collection, Adoration of the 
Kings (Fra Filippo), 13-14 

—,—, Descent of the Holy Ghost, 133 

—,—, Fancy Portrait of Simonetta, 63, 64 

(Plate xxIx) 

Rivista d’Arte (1905), 8 

Robbia, Ambrogio della, 121 

—, Andrea della, 21 

—, Luca della, 28, 100, 154 

Roman Frescoes, see Sixtine Frescoes 

— Sojourn, 39, 74-84, 103 

Rome, Borghese Gallery, Virgin with St. John 
and Angels, 104, 105 (Plate L111) 

—,—, Guidi Madonna, 19 

—, Sixtine Chapel, see Sixtine Frescoes 

—, Santo Spirito, Church, 78 

—, St. Peter’s, Pieta (Michelangelo), 132 

Rosselli, Cosimo, 37, 62, 75, 91 

Rossellino, Antonio, 21 

Rossetti, Dante Gabriel, 2 

Rovere, Giuliano della (Pope Julius II), 80 
(Plate xxxv1) 

Rubens, 124 

Rucellai, Pagnolo, 10 

Rumohr, C. F. von, 109 


Sacrifice of the Death of Christ, Symbols of, 
102, 103, 104, 110 


Salviati, Francesco, Archbishop of Pisa 
(Portrait on the Bargello), 48 
Sandarac Paints, 18, 166 
Sandro, see Amico di Sandro 
Sangallo, Giuliano di, 22, 26 
Sarto, Andrea del, 162 
Sassetti, Francesco, 43 
Satyrs, Boy (Mars and Venus), London, 
National Gallery, 67-8 (Plate xxx1) 
Savonarola, 9, 10, 39, 50, 94, 112, 113, 115, 
117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 128, 
130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 
145, 150, 151, 153, 154, 162, 163 
Sebastian, St., Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich 
Museum, 33, 34, 35, 57, 68, 81, 157 
(Plate xv11) 
—,—, London, National Gallery (Antonio 
Pollajuolo), 34-5 
Segni, Antonio, 113 
Sellajo, Jacopo, 91, 96 
Seymour, Alfred, Collection, London, 64, 89 
Sforza, Caterina Riario, 80, 89, 119 
—,—, Portrait, 88—9 (Plate xxIv) 
—, Ludovico, 91 
Sforzore, Niccolo, 
Lorenzo ‘Tornabuoni 
(Plates XLVII, XLVIII) 
Signorelli, 75 
Simon, Dr. Eduard, Gallery, Berlin, Portrait 
of a Man, 87 (Plate Lx) 
Simonetta, Lady-love of Giuliano de’ Medici, 
49, 60-8, 69, 71, 72, 82, 86 
—, Portrait, Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, 
63—4 (Plate xxvu1) 
—,—, Berlin, Kappel Collection, 63—4 (Plate 
XXXVI) 
—, —, Chantilly, Museum (Piero di Cosimo), 
61—3, 129 (Plate xxviz) 
—,—, Frankfort, Staedel Museum, 63-4 
(Plate xxIx) 
—,—, Richmond, Cook Collection, 63, 64 
(Plate xxx) 
Sixtine Frescoes, 35—6, 77, 78—85, 152, 157 
—,—, Aaron Punishing the Rebellious, 76, 77 
(Plate x1) 
—,—, Leper, Cleansing of the, 77-80, 93 
(Plate xxxv1) 
—, —, Moses, Youth of, 81-3 (Plate xxxvm) 
Sixtus IV, Pope, 48, 74, 78, 79, 89, 90, 91, 117 
—,—, Memorial (Pollajuoli), 91, 92 
Soderini, Piero, 16 
—, Tommaso, 154 
Sordello (Dante Illustration), 148 
Spedaletto, Villa, Volterra, Frescoes, 91 
Spini, Doffo, 120 
Spoleto, Duomo, Decoration by Fra Filippo, 
Spring, Florence, Uffizi, 4, 50, 52, 55-60, 66, 
69, 70, 71, 73, 79, 93, 101, 102, 111, 146, 
156, 157, 166 (Plates xxv, xc) 
Staedel Institute, Frankfort (Portrait of 
Simonetta), 64 (Plate xx1x) 
Steinmann, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84 
Strasburg, Gallery, Madonna, 19 


181 


Medallion Portraits of 
and his Wife 


SANDRO BOTTICELLI 


Strozzi, Filippo, 45-6 
—, Palace, 49 
Stufa, Niccolo della, 50 


Tapestry, Coronation of the Virgin (after 
a Design of Botticelli’s, Milan, Poldi- 
Pezzoli Gallery), 164 
—, Designs, 164 
—, Franco-Dutch, 160 
Titian, 111 
Titus, Arch of, Lucretia Panel, 
Gardner Collection, 129 
Tobias (with Three Archangels), Verrocchio, 
Florence, Uffizi, 31—2, 34, 107, 161 
—, with the Archangel Raphael (Pollajuolo) 
Turin, Gallery, 32 
—,on the Journey (after Verrocchio), Turin 
Gallery, 107 
Tondos, 14, 15, 35, 99-100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 
160 
Tornabuoni, Frescoes, see Lemmi Frescoes 
—, Lorenzo, 92, 93, 94, 111, 119 (Plate xnv) 
—, Medallions (Plates xLvm, XLvm1) 
Torrigiani, Giovanni, 45 
—, Lorenzo, 45 
—, Collection, Florence (Male Portrait), 86 
(Plate xxxvii1) 
Training, 8—10 
Trajan, Emperor (Justice of the Emperor 
Trajan, Dante Drawing), 147-8 
Traversari, Paolo (from the Boccaccio Panels), 
95-7 (Plate Lx) 
Treatise on Painting, Leonardo, 35, 163 
Trionfo della Fede, Engraving after Botti- 
celli’s Design, 146 
Turin, Gallery, Madonna Crouching (School 
Work), 107 
—,—, Tobias on the Journey (after Verroc- 
chio), 32, 107 
—,—, Tobias with the Archangel Raphael 
(Pollajuoli),' 34 
Two-dimensional Composition, 15, 25, 160 


Boston, 


Uccello, Paolo, 5, 6 
Uffizi, Florence, Adoration of the Kings 
(about 1475), 15, 16, 37, 39, 40, 41-7, 49, 
69, 79, 80, 84, 85, 87, 99, 101, 102, 157, 
158 (Plates xx, Xx1) 
—.—, Adoration (Unfinished), 139-41, 147, 
158 (Plate Lxxv11) 
—,—, Adoration (Ghirlandajo), 14 
—,—, Annunciation, 36, 112-13, 126 (Plate 
LVII1) 
—.—, Assumption (Engraving after Botti- 
celli’s Design), 37, 133, 165 (Plate 
LXXVI) 
—,—, Athene, Drawing, 38 (Plate xx11) 
—,—, Augustine, St., in his Study, 125, 159 
(Plate Lxv1) 
—,—, Birth of Venus, g.v. 
—,—, Calumny of Appelles, 113, 116, 139, 
159 (Plate Lrx) 


182 


Uffizi, Florence, Coronation of the Virgin, 
105, 111, 123, 136, 146, 160 (Plates Lv11, 
XC) 
—,-—, Discovery of the Corpse of Holofernes, 
31, 32, 33, 38, 40-2, 125 (Plate xv) 
—, —, Fortitudo, g.v. 
—,—, Judith, 30-1, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 
66, 79, 123, 125 (Plate xtv) 
—,—, Madonna (Fra Filippo), 18 (Plate v1) 
—,—, Madonna in a Cloud of Cherubim, 20 
(Plate x) 
—,—, Madonna with St. John and Angels, 
19-20 (Plate vit) 
—,—, Madonna del Melagrano, 21, 87, 102— 
3, 104, 105, 108 (Plate 11) 
—,—, Madonna Enthroned with Six Saints, 


q.v 

ya , Magnificat Madonna, 103 (Plate 111) 

—, —, Male Portrait, 85 

—, —, Pallas (Study in Silver Point), 38 
(Plate xx11) 

—,-—, Rosebush Madonna, 21—2 (Plate x1) 

—,—, Singing Angels, Collection of Draw- 
ings (Plate 1) 

—,—, Study for the Adoration of the Child 
(Plate xc) 

—,—, Tobias on the Journey (Verrocchio), 
31, 32, 107, 161 

Ulmann, Hermann, 4, 17, 88 

Umbrian Artists, 158 

Urbino, Palazzo Ducale, Pallas by Baccio 

Pontelli, 39 

—,—, Liberal Arts, Panels by Melozzo da 

Forli, 93 


Vasari, 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 42, 45, 52, 54, 61, 62, 75, 
95, 96, 117, 129, 133, 138, 152, 154—5 

Vatican Library, Dante Drawings, 143 

—, Chapel, 75 

Vecchio, Palazzo, Frescoes, 75, 84, 90, 120 

Veneziano, Domenico, Frescoes in Santa 
Maria Nuova, 34, 158 

Venice, School of Painting, 79, 102 

Venturi, Adolfo, 58, 71 

Venus, Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, 
70-1, 157 (Plate xxxm). SeealsoSpring, 
Birth of Venus, Mars and Venus 

Verdure (Franco-Dutch Tapestries), 160 

Verino, Ugolino, 139 

Verrocchio, 6, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 
31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 41, 51, 57, 65, 69, 90, 
107, 109, 158, 161, 166 

Vespucci, Family, 73, 74, see also Simonetta 

—, Giovanni, 129, 141, 147 

—, Guidantonio, 129 

—, Marco (Husband of Simonetta), 61, 62, 73 

Vienna, Academy, Madonna with Angels, 
107 : 


—, Esther Panel (Filippino), 127 

Virgil, 53, 148 

Virginia Panels, Bergamo, Carrara Gallery, 
128-9, 140 (Plate xx) 

Virtues, 12, 16, 66 


INDEX 


Volterra, Decoration of the Villa Spedaletto, 
91 


Warburg, Aby, 4, 8, 10, 55, 57, 71 

Watney, Vernon, Collection, London (Tale of 
Nastagio degli Onesti), 93—7 (Plate ux) 

Window Frame Motive, 22, 64, 87, 88, 89 
(Plates XXXVI, XXVIII, XLII, XLIII, 
XLIv) 


Woodcuts, Florentine, 165 


Zamometic, Andrea, Bishop of Krain, 83 

Zenobius Panels, London, Mond Collection, 
and Dresden Gallery, 127-9 (Plates 
XVIII, LXIx) 

—, Chapel, Florence, Commission for Mosaics 
118, 128 

Zeuxis (Copy), 115 


183 





* 


‘ 
| 
4 : ” 
a big 
. i P 
| ; a 
i ' 
rs, 
Y 
as TRY 
Xu x : 
aa ! 
Ry 
4 
5 . 
<< 


Printed ta’ Cront Britain by 


Butler & Tanner Ltd., 
| Frome and London 





x 
P 
¥ 
‘ 
i 
1 
\ 
7 
Fan S : | 
ae ; 
. 
eae 
aN 
‘ 
: 
, 
; 
voy 
‘ 
; ‘ 
‘ 


a 


wae 


~ 


sgh 





PLATE I 





UFFIZI. 


ICAT. FLORENCE, 


. 


MAGNIKI 


THE 


PLATE Wl 





SINGING ANGELS. FLORENCE, 


UFFIZI, COLLECTION OF DRAWINGS. 





PORTRAIT OF SANDRO BOTTICELLI FROM FILIPPINO’S 
LIKENESS IN THE FRESCO OF MASACCIO’S CRUCIFIXION 
OF SAINT PETER. FLORENCE, CARMINE. 


PLATE Il 


PLA GEA 





ADORATION OF THE KINGS. LONDON, NATIONAL GALLERY. 


PLATE 





ADORATION OF THE KINGS. LONDON, NATIONAL GALLERY. 


PLATE VI 


ANTM NS 


. 
| 





ENCE, UFFIZI- 


FLOR 


FORTITUDE 


PLATE Vil 





UFFIZI. 


ORENCE, 


ADONNA. FI 


M 


p] 


FILIPPO 


FRA 


MEME Te SI Pe ade 


| 
i 
{ 





MADONNA WITH ANGELS. FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


PLATE 1X 





MADONNA WITH FIVE A PARIS, LOUVRE: 





Ve EIT P26 


Deine 


arene ar ee a ee Bey eg re 


er | 
I< 


I 


Pe 


f & 


bE A\/ 





MUNG 


Ts 


ENCE, UFFIZ 


CHERUBIM, FLOR 


A IN A CLOUD OF 


MADONN 


PEALE XL 





ROSEBUSH MADONNA FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


PIEA DLE TV 


> 





JUDITH AND HER MAID WITH THE HEAD OF HOLOFERNES. FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


PLATE Xr 





DISCOVERY OF THE CORPSE OF HOLOFERNES. FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


PLATE XVII 





MADONNA WITH TWO ANGELS. NAPLES, MUSEO NAZIONALE. 


XIX 


Aad Ee, 


be ; 
She. “» 
Ete 86S yon 


“ 





, UFFIZI 


FLORENCE 


MADONNA ENTHRONED WITH SIX SAINTS 


PLATE XX 





‘AMATIVO AOVLINAYH ‘GVAYDOULAd ‘SONIN AHL AO NOILVUOUV 


= 


i 
i 


PLATE ..X/ 


FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


S 


1 
7 


KINC 


\ 
“u 


ADORATION OF THE 





PLATE XXII 





UFFIZI. 


FLORENCE, 


THE KINGS. 


ADORATION OF 


LL A ENN EE 





DETAIL FROM THE ADORATION. FLORENCE. UFFIZI. 


PLATE XXIV 





DETAIL FROM THE ADORATION. FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


PLATE XX 





PORTRAIT OF GIULIANO DE’ MEDICI. BERLIN, KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH MUSEUM. 


PLATE XXV1 





PORTRAIT OF GIULIANO DE’ MEDICI. NEW YORK, OTTO 
H. KAHN COLLECTION 





PLATE XXVII 








LORENCE, UFFIZI. 


F 


THENE. 


SIGN FOR AN A 


DE 


PLALE AMVILEL 


IZ1HdN 


HONGAOTA 


“ONTUdS 





PLATE XXIX 





PORTRAIT OF SIMONETT: 





2 BERLINEKAPPEL COLLECTION. 


PLATE XXX 





PIERO DI COSIMO. FANCY PORTRAIT OF SIMONETTA. 
CHANTILLY, MUSEUM. 


PLATE XXX1 





PORTRAIT OF SIMONETTA, BERLIN, KAISER-FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM. 


PLATE XXXUW 





FANCY PORTRAIT OF SIMONETTA. FRANKFORT AM MAIN 
STAEDEL INSTITUTE. 


PLATE XXXII 





FANCY PORTRAIT OF SIMONETTA. RICHMOND, COOK 
COLLECTION, 


PLATE XXXIV 


AYATIVO TIVNOILVN 


‘NOGNO'T 


“SONA UNV Savi 








PLATE XXAV 





VENUS. BERLIN, KAISER-FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM, 


PLATE XXXVI 


ROT LUM EASE 





HU BIZ I. 


FLORENC 


S 


NU 


: 


BIRTH OF Vk 


. 


THI 


PLATE XXXVII 





BRONZE PLAQUE BY A FI.OR- 

ENTINE MASTER ABOUT 1475. 

BERLIN, KAISER-FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM. 


PLATE XXXVIII 





NISSANTI 


FLORENCE, OG 


USTINE 


AINT AUG 


FRESCO OF S 


PLATE XXXIX 


‘lad VHO ANILXIS ‘ANOY 


YAdaT AHL dO ONISNVATO 


TIVIOIMINOVS HHL ONILOIUd OOSHaA 





PLATE XL 


"IHdVHO ANILXIS ‘ANON ‘SHSOW AO HLNOA AHL 


ONILOICHd OOSHAA 








PLATE XLI 





PORTRAIT OF A MAN. PARIS, RUD. KANN COLLECTION. 


PLATE XLII 





FLORENCE, 


PORTRAIT OF ,A YOUTH WEARING A HOOD. 


PALAZZO PITTI. 


PLATERALHET 


Aad VAD 


ANILXIS 





“TINOU 


S 


NOITTAdAA AHL ONIHSINONd NOUVV ONILOIGAd OOSHAA 





PILATE MELE 


PORTRAIT OF 





A YOUTH WEARING A RED CAP, LONDON, 
NATIONAL GALLERY. 


PLATE XLV 





PORTRAIT OF A YOUTH AGAINST AN OPEN WINDOW. 
AMERICAN PRIVATE COLLECTION. 


PLATE XLVI 





VICTORIA AND 


> 


LONDON 


ING AS eROOM 


AY OUNGRIEADIY 


UM. 


= 
vy 


K 


MUS 


ERT 


ALB 


PLATE XLVI 





(?)} PORTRAIT OF CATERINA SFORZA IN PROFILE. 
ALTENBURG, MUSEUM. 


PLATE XLVITI 





CRAL 


( LIB 


OF THK 


IRCLE 


TH EY 


‘TO 





— 


NZO TORNABUONI 


4 


INTRODUCTION OF LORI 


THE 


‘ 
of 


FRESCO: DEPICTING 


ve 


PARIS, LOUVRE 


NCES. 


4 


SCI 


PLATE XL/1X 


ARIS, LOUVRE. 


P 


SCO DEPICTING THE GREETING OF GIOVANNA DEGLI ALBIZZI BY THE CARDINAL VIRTUES. 


a 


FR 





PLATE CL 





PORTRAIT MEDALLION OF GIOVANNA DEGLI ? 
ALBIZZI, WIFE OF LORENZO TORNABUONI, 
BY NICCOLO SFORZORE. 





PLATE LI 





PORTRAIT MEDALLION OF LORENZO 
TORNABUONI BY NICCOLO SFORZORE. 


PLATE Lil 





PALAZZO PITTI. 


FLORENCE 


TAMING THE CENTAUR 


PALLAS ATHENE 


PLATE Lill 





RACZINSKI MADONNA. BERLIN, KAISER-FRIEDRICH MUSEUM. 


PLATE Liv 





-MADONNA WITH THE POMEGRANATE. FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


PLATE LV 





MADONNA WITH ANGELS AND THE LITTLE ST. JOHN. ROME, BORGHESE GALLERY. 


PLATE L¥I 





MADONNA WITH ANGELS HOLDING CANDLESTICKS. BERLIN, KAISER-FRIEDRICH MUSEUM. 


PLATES) 977 





MADONNA ENTHRONED WITH SIX SAINTS. FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


PLADESSV TEL 





MADONNA WITH .THE TWO ST. JOHNS. BERLIN, KAISER-FRIEDRICH MUSEUM 





PLATE LIX 








THE CORONATION OF THE VIRGIN, WITH FOUR SAINTS. FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


CHEAT IES [eX 


























UFFIZI. 


5) 


ORENCE 


FL 


CIATION 


ANNUN 


K 


H 


1 


PLA TERE AL 


FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 





THE CALUMNY OF APELLES. 











PLATE, UX 


“NOILOYUTIOO 


AAUNLIVM 





ONYHA ‘NOUNOT 


ILSHNO TIDGdC OLDVISVN dO 


AUYOLS HHL 





PLAT EYL ATT 





PORTRAIT OF A MAN AGAINST A BLUE BACKGROUND. 
BERLIN, EDUARD SIMON COLLECTION. 


PLATE LXIV 





* (2?) PORTRAIT OF CLARICE ORSINI. FLORENCE PALAZZO PITTI. 


PLATE LXV 





ADORATION OF THE CHILD UNDER A CANOPY. MILAN, AMBROSIANA. 


PLATE LXVI 





MADONNA. MILAN POLDI-PEZZOLI COLLECTION. 


RLATE, EXVIL 





THE LAST COMMUNION OF ST. JEROME. NEW YORK, METRO- 
POLITAN MUSEUM 


PLATE, LXVIN 


ee dete: 
dodges 





SAINT AUGUSTINE IN HISSTUDY. FLORENCE, UFFIZI, 


PLATE LXIX 





OLERCIION: 


TRO AE 


LDSCHINS 


HRIGIN, EU, 


B 


THE ANNUNCIATION 


PLATE LAX. 


“NOTLOYTIOO 


ANOW ‘AUATIVS IVNOILVN ‘NOGNOT ‘SOISONAZ LS JO AAIT AHL WOUA SANADS 





PLATE LXX! 


‘NOILOUTION GNOW ‘AUNATTVO IVNOILVN 


‘ 


NOCGNO 


r 


[ 


S 


n 


IGONUZ 


LS dO dal 


T AHL WOdd SHNADS 





PLATE LXXITI 


‘AMHTIVS VAVAAVO ‘ONVOUNAA 


‘VINIOWIA 4O AXOLS HHL 





PEATE SE GALLE 








ile 





PORTRAIT OF LORENZO LORENZANO. PHILADELPHIA, MUSEU 


PLATE LXXIV 


“MHHLOAVNId ALTV ‘HOINOW 


“LSIYWHO AOA NOILVINGANWNVI AHL 





PLATE -DXXY 





LECTION 


4 


OLI COI 


PEZZ 


, POT,DI- 


MILAN 


ATION FOR CHRIST 


AMENT 


THE L 


PEATE VGAAVE 





ADORATION OF THE CHILD. LONDON, NATIONAL GALLERY. 


PLATE LXXVIT 





THE DIVINE PUNISHMENT OF FLORENCE. PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. 


PLATE LXXVIM 








FLORENCE UFFIZI. 


ENGRAVING OF THE ASSUMPTION. 


E 


COPPERPLAT 


BPLATE LAXIX 





PORTRAIT OF DANTEY LONDON; LANGTON DOUGLAS: 


PLATE ALXAA 


“LLANTAV 
“HOLLSURAd AM NITAAA CIXXX OLNVO ‘ONYAANI) SINVIO GHNALLAA AHL :VIGANWOD VNIAIC SGAINVd YOu ONIMVAG 





iS 
4 ‘> 
<3" 

my Cy ‘ q . 
CAO OR Fer ine at 





Call LAMA L 


SERLIN, 


IN THE CIRCLE OF THE ENVIOUS (PURGATORIO,;, CANTO°X‘V.). 


KUPFERSTICH-KABINETT. 





2 


DIVINA COMMEDIA : 


FOR DANTE’S 





DRAWING 


Cs kl ON eC IY ETT Te ne i abl Sethi! Sct Sande a 


PLATE LXXXU 





PURGATORY 
KUPFERSTICH- 


BOUNDARY BETWEEN 


E 
CANTO XXIX 


NAE Otel 


EDIA 


DIVINA COMM 


S 
EARTHLY PARADISE (PURGATORIO 


DRAWING FOR DANTE 


AND THE 


BERLIN, 


Du 


KABINETT 





PLATE LXXXII11 





sone, 


ae pe 


y 
Sage a 
ts ee 


te soi 





: ‘ 
ite ok 
o* " PEERS 
oe etd 
rt ms hes a i 
ay & me 
ie S. 4 
+ ¢ | 
eee “ : * i" 
+ aad at 
a 


mane 


aemrwsinsiced 





DRAWING FOR DANTE’S DIVINA COMMEDIA: DANTE, GUIDED 


BY BEATRICE, FLOATS UP TO PARADISE. 


(PARADISO, CANTO I.) 


KUPFERSTICH-KABINETT 


BERLIN, 


PLATE LXXXIV 


DRAWING FOR DANTE’S DIVINA COMMEDIA: DAN 
BEATRICE IN THE FIFTH HEAVEN, THE SPHERE O 









PLATE EXAAVY 








PORTRAIT OF A 





(OU LHS PARTS aly OUR 


PLATE LXXXV1I 




















SCENE FROM THE LIFE OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE. PHILADELPHIA, MUSEUM. 


PLATE LXXXVII 


-atagquonsiarnlll 


4 


i 





SCENE FROM THE LIFE OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE. PHILADELPHIA, MUSEUM. 


PLATE LXXXVIE 





SCENE FROM THE LIFE OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE. PHILADELPHIA, MUSEUM. 


) DOU SS SE DED, OAS 





SCENES FROM THE LIFE OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE. PHILADELPHIA, MUSEUM. 


PLATE XC 





LEAD PLAQUE OF VENUS ON 

THE DOLPHIN, ARLE RS BOTTI 

CELLI. BERLIN, KAISER-FRIED- 
RICH MUSEUM. 


PALES CE 





PORTRAIT OF A YOUTH AGAINST A BLACK BACKGROUND. 
BERLIN, KAISER-FRIEDRICH MUSEUM. 


VRE AIOVE RET EG 


tintin nn etna mn onanism = 





ALLERY. 


y 
J 


LASGOW ( 


G 


SIATION. 


ANNUNC 


THE 


PLATE AACIIL 





DANCING ANGELS FROM THE CORONATION OF THE VIRGIN. FLORENCE, UFFIZI. 


PLATE XCIV 





DANCING ANGELS FROM THE CORONATION OF THE VIRGIN. FLORENCE, UFFIZI 


PLATE XCV 





oH EZ T. 


E 


ENC 


LOR 


4 


I 


b) 
. 


G 


ADTOR HUORA INS SPRIEN 


, 
4, 


HI 


PLATE XCVI 





HEAD OF A GRACE IN “SPRING.” FLORENCE, UFFIZI.! 


PLATE XCVII 





- TT ELORENCE UPBIZI. 





HEAD OF A GRACE IN ‘“‘SPRINC 


PLATE XCVIUI 





UFFIZI 


FLORENCE, 


D 


4 


E CHII 


ATION OF TH 


DY FOR AN ADOR 


Se 











Bode, 


aia 


Tea, 


Ste 





